Alright, let me put an equally simple point to you: McDonald's put a spill-proof lid on the coffee before serving it to her. That lid was specifically designed to make it damn near impossible to spill the coffee, at least in any dangerous amount. She removed the lid. To me, case closed.
How the hell was she supposed to get cream and/or sugar into the coffee without removing the lid? Or does wanting coffee that isn't black also make it her fault?
How the hell was she supposed to get cream and/or sugar into the coffee without removing the lid?
Perhaps in some manner that didn't involve pouring the coffee on herself?
Not a very spill proof lid, since it came off when the server handed it to her son, and her son handed it to her. Try answering my other question, at what point does it become okay for one mistake when handling a foodstuff to result in $20,000 worth of medical bills? Is serving coffee at potentially lethal tempratures ever okay, no matter what the warning on the cup is?
How the hell was she supposed to get cream and/or sugar into the coffee without removing the lid?
Perhaps in some manner that didn't involve pouring the coffee on herself?
You're acting as though this lid is some sort of iron-clad fool-proof system for keeping this (shown to be) dangerous substance contained. It isn't. As I've pointed out, the lid must be removed to add creamer/sugar...and act that I would consider "reasonable." Also I'm assuming I'm not the only person on the goddamn planet who has had one of these lids come off on me before.
First it's her fault because she was dumb enough to remove the lid. Now it's her fault because she was dumb enough to spill it. If somebody had bumped into her instead of her spilling it herself, would it be her fault for walking? Or perhaps the other guy's fault for not watching where he was going.
How the hell was she supposed to get cream and/or sugar into the coffee without removing the lid?
Perhaps in some manner that didn't involve pouring the coffee on herself?
Not a very spill proof lid, since it came off when the server handed it to her son, and her son handed it to her. Try answering my other question, at what point does it become okay for one mistake when handling a foodstuff to result in $20,000 worth of medical bills? Is serving coffee at potentially lethal tempratures ever okay, no matter what the warning on the cup is?
I dunno, if the warning is explicit, it protects the consumer, but not a bystander, should they trip, fall, and spill it on someone else...but then, should McDonald's be liable for that? I'm torn on the issue. It seems to me that selling an item capable of giving anyone 3rd degree burns is irresponsible at best, and should follow a strict liability rule, wherein it's always their fault, because they're choosing to do something obviously dangerous, that benefits only them.
Vincent Grayson on
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited November 2006
If they're filling the container with extremely dangerous liquids, then yeah, they're pretty damn liable.
Critics of civil justice often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
Try answering my other question, at what point does it become okay for one mistake when handling a foodstuff to result in $20,000 worth of medical bills? Is serving coffee at potentially lethal temperatures ever okay, no matter what the warning on the cup is?
The very question defies my censure of reality. I can imagine all sorts of accidents, with all sort of products I buy and consume every day, which may result in my injury or death. At what point does it become okay? I liked their defense. It becomes ok when you show that a) the product is dangerous because your customers prefer it that way, and b) that the instance of harm is so rare as to be considered freak occurrence - by defintion not a direct result of any policy. The addition of some reasonable consideration to your customers, such as spill-proof lids and warning labels, only strengthens the case.
I have to admit I'm somewhat dissapointed in this forum that this thread has gone on so long.
It was over in the first page.
I was just about to say.
And as I pointed out early on, you're being an overly smug dickhole if you think this is all open-and-shut. If it was so obviously one way or another, then it would have either been settled early on, or dimsmissed as frivolous early on. Since it was neither, I think it's safe to assume there are good points on both sides.
This portion of the debate is completely devoid of any reason whatsoever on your part. Your claim that people are paying to burn their mouths 10 billion times over, because that suits them better than the lower-temp flavor of McDonald's coffee, is one of the most absurd and ridiculous attempts at an argument I have ever read from you in this forum.
I hear people still fall for the "X-Ray Vision glasses that only work because the hole is so tiny that they can barely see anything" gag. I've also heard kids comment that certain vegetables taste better when you have a cold, specifically because you can't taste them as well.
The idea that people can rationalize "doesn't taste as bad" with "tastes slightly better" doesn't surprise me.
Bottom line: it's what their customers prefer, and the number of people who get burned by it is 1 in 24 million.
Right. It's McDonalds, and only McDonalds, that's discovered the secret to making great coffee is to heat it up to scalding temperatures. Obviously, it's the main quality that consumers prefer for it's own merits, since the quality of the beans and what not has no effect on the taste whatsoever. Other restaurants have yet to catch up to McDonalds, however, because they're too stupid to overheat their coffee to boiling temperatures for extended periods of times and then serving it 15-20 degrees higher than everywhere else does. :rolleyes:
Yes, I've read several briefs on it. It isn't in the lawsuit. You made it up. What is in the lawsuit was expert testimony that, statistically, 1 in 24 million was no different than 0.
If that's the case, then they should have no problem paying such customers off, because hey, statistically it only happens zero percent of the time, which means they pay nothing. :rolleyes:
Do you realize how self-contradictory your point is?
What part of "zero tolerance" or "statistical insignificance" don't you understand?
The issue here is gross negligence and arrogance in regards to safety.
That gets a big ol' LOL. The heating coil in a home heater is WAY hotter than 185F.
Again, you're confusing the cooking temperature with the serving temperature. Pizza ovens can be upwards of 900 degrees. Pizza is supposed to be hot. I wouldn't want to eat a 900 degree pizza, however.
It was part of the testimony in the trial. The absorbent pants she was wearing are what allowed a large enough quantity to be held against her skin for a long enough time.
During which point it would quickly cool down.
I never said that wearing sweat pants made it her fault. It does, however, lend a lot of creedence to the statistical outlier argument.
If you serve millions of customers a day, then a lot of them are going to be old, and a lot of them will wear sweats. McDonalds caters to the lowest common denominator when it comes to food quality, so why isn't it catering in terms of food safety as well? No one forced McDonalds to sell food through te drive thru. Once they made the decision to do so, it's up to them to make sure that their food can safely be handled in a car.
Right, and the difference was testified to be statistically unpredictable due to the insignificantly small number of actual burns.
That they hear about. For every third degree burn that gets reported, there are going to be a lot more first and second degree burns that don't.
Alright, let me put an equally simple point to you: McDonald's put a spill-proof lid on the coffee before serving it to her. That lid was specifically designed to make it damn near impossible to spill the coffee, at least in any dangerous amount. She removed the lid. To me, case closed.
Would that make it harder to open? If so, then that's a design flaw, if you have to struggle with the mechanism for a highly violatile substance.
I can imagine all sorts of accidents, with all sort of products I buy and consume every day, which may result in my injury or death. At what point does it become okay?
When you don't go out of your way to make your product less safe than it has to be.
? I liked their defense. It becomes ok when you show that a) the product is dangerous because your customers prefer it that way
Consumer Reporter: Alright. Fine. Fine. Well, we'd like to show you another one of Mr. Mainway's products. It retails for $1.98, and it's called Bag O' Glass. [ holds up bag of glass ] Mr. Mainway, this is simply a bag of jagged, dangerous, glass bits.
Irwin Mainway: Yeah, right, it's you know, it's glass, it's broken glass, you know? It sells very well, as a matter of fact, you know? It's just broken glass, you know?
Consumer Reporter: [ laughs ] I don't understand. I mean, children could seriously cut themselves on any one of these pieces!
Irwin Mainway: Yeah, well, look - you know, the average kid, he picks up, you know, broken glass anywhere, you know? The beach, the street, garbage cans, parking lots, all over the place in any big city. We're just packaging what the kids want!
and b) that the instance of harm is so rare as to be considered freak occurrence - by defintion not a direct result of any policy.
Old lady drinks coffee is gets struck by lightning is a freak occurance. Old person spills coffee on herself while in a car, from a restaurant with a drive thru menu, is not.
If McDonalds started selling liquor through a drive-thru window and the DUI rate suddenly skyrocketed, would you attribute that to a freak occurance as well?
Alright, let me put an equally simple point to you: McDonald's put a spill-proof lid on the coffee before serving it to her. That lid was specifically designed to make it damn near impossible to spill the coffee, at least in any dangerous amount. She removed the lid. To me, case closed.
Alright, let me put an equally simple point to you: McDonald's put a spill-proof lid on the coffee before serving it to her. That lid was specifically designed to make it damn near impossible to spill the coffee, at least in any dangerous amount. She removed the lid. To me, case closed.
To put in the creme. Everybody does that.
Apparently, by adding cream, you sign any and all expectations that the product will be fit for consumption.
Yar, once again: Are you suggesting that only because she was wearing sweatpants, she was burned so badly? Because that would mean that all the burn victims McD's brushed off before were ALSO wearing sweatpants at the time they were injured. I'm no statistics major, but I think that's improbable enough to dismiss.
Right. It's McDonalds, and only McDonalds, that's discovered the secret to making great coffee is to heat it up to scalding temperatures.
Starbucks is like four times more expensive. McDonald's customers aren't interested in the best beans. They want hot liquid with caffeine at a cheap price. And they prefer it really hot.
If that's the case, then they should have no problem paying such customers off, because hey, statistically it only happens zero percent of the time, which means they pay nothing.
I agree. I would have just paid her. It's not like it was a phony neckbrace or something. She was burned all to hell. But that doesn't mean I think the courts were correct to rule negligence.
Again, you're confusing the cooking temperature with the serving temperature. Pizza ovens can be upwards of 900 degrees. Pizza is supposed to be hot. I wouldn't want to eat a 900 degree pizza, however.
The consumer product in question was a space heater. It does get way hotter than 185F.
If McDonalds started selling liquor through a drive-thru window and the DUI rate suddenly skyrocketed, would you attribute that to a freak occurance as well?
You're failing to grasp some very simple concepts here. The word you chose there, "skyrocketed," is the antithesis of the truth on this matter. It is the exact opposite of "statistically so small as to be effectively zero."
Yar, once again: Are you suggesting that only because she was wearing sweatpants, she was burned so badly? Because that would mean that all the burn victims McD's brushed off before were ALSO wearing sweatpants at the time they were injured. I'm no statistics major, but I think that's improbable enough to dismiss.
In her particular case, yes, the sweatpants were what held enough of the liquid on her to burn her. The other 700/10,000,000,000 cases probably involved other freak occurrences as well. I don't know the specifics. I do know that pretty much all of them involved employees spilling the coffee, and they were not "brushed off," they were settled. In this case, someone's pride probably got the best of them, and they said "fuck no, she opened it and spilled it herself, let's go to court."
P.S. Ironic that you are talking about things which are improbable enough to dismiss.
You're failing to grasp some very simple concepts here. The word you chose there, "skyrocketed," is the antithesis of the truth on this matter. It is the exact opposite of "statistically so small as to be effectively zero."
The number of people who get killed driving drunk compared to the number of people who drive drunk is propably statistically so small as to be effectively zero. Another example is the defective Firestone tires. Only 41 people died because of the tires. There were thousands of people driving the cars with the defective tires.
During the 1970s, the Firestone 500 steel-belted radials where known to separate from the tread, usually at high speeds, due to water seeping under the tread, which caused the belting to rust and the treading to separate. Joan Claybrook, who was the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) during the Firestone scandal stated before the Transportation Subcommittee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations on September 6, 2000, that "There was a documented coverup by Firestone of the 500 defect, spurred by the lack of a Firestone replacement tire."
In March 1978, NHTSA announced publicly a formal investigation into defects of the Firestone 500. Firestone refused to cooperate. Firestone first asserted that only 400,000 tires produced at the Decatur plant were defective. But during the NHTSA investigation the NHTSA found that the tread separation defect was a design performance defect affecting all Firestone 500's. Firestone knew about this defect for at least three years prior and never told the NHTSA.
After forty one deaths, and after Firestone initially blamed consumers (improper repairs, rough use, or under-inflation), on Oct. 20, 1978, Firestone then recalled ten million tires.
The number of people who were killed or injured was statistically nil. There were over ten million tires. If only one million of those were used, that would mean that only 4.1×10^-5 were killed from the problems.
Starbucks is like four times more expensive. McDonald's customers aren't interested in the best beans. They want hot liquid with caffeine at a cheap price. And they prefer it really hot.
If the customers prefer something dangerous, they shouldn't get it. If customers wanted burgers with some lead in it, they wouldn't get it.
Starbucks is like four times more expensive. McDonald's customers aren't interested in the best beans.
But they are interested in 3rd degree burns, right?
So we're all agreed. Serving coffee at super high temps is only important when your coffee tastes like crap.
They want hot liquid with caffeine at a cheap price. And they prefer it really hot.
The jury disagrees.
I agree. I would have just paid her. It's not like it was a phony neckbrace or something. She was burned all to hell. But that doesn't mean I think the courts were correct to rule negligence.
Why not? It was effectively zero. Zero times any number is zero. The verdict could have been a billion dollars, and it would still be effectively zero. Right?
The consumer product in question was a space heater. It does get way hotter than 185F.
The heater does, the room doesn't. Again, cooking temp vs. serving temp.
I don't understand. She was burned, so obviously it didn't cool down fast enough.
Not fast enough for boiling hot liquids, no.
Maybe so. But I don't intend to debate facts from your own imagination.
Hey kids, maybe there's more ice beneath the surface of the water. But hey, let's not speculate on stuff from my imagination. :roll:
And how do we determine the legal definition of "has to be." It doesn't "have to be" any particular temperature.
The jury disagrees. So does all the literature on recomended serving temperatures.
You're failing to grasp some very simple concepts here. The word you chose there, "skyrocketed," is the antithesis of the truth on this matter. It is the exact opposite of "statistically so small as to be effectively zero."
Higher temps result in exponentially higher burn rates. McDonalds served their coffee at much higher temps than their competitors. Ergo, exponentiall higher burn rates. Ergo, skyrocketing.
If McDonalds started selling liquor through a drive-thru window and the DUI rate suddenly skyrocketed, would you attribute that to a freak occurance as well?
You're failing to grasp some very simple concepts here. The word you chose there, "skyrocketed," is the antithesis of the truth on this matter. It is the exact opposite of "statistically so small as to be effectively zero."
Also, from a bit of googling I found a site (obviously biased mind, but so is every one I find, The wiki article looks like it's been batted back and forth a bit as well. But still, assuming this is true) the claim is:
Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
I suppose all these people are statistical non entities huh?
I really dont get where you're going with this argument. It just sounds like "The Formula" from Fight Club
f a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).
A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.
If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.
If McDonalds started selling liquor through a drive-thru window and the DUI rate suddenly skyrocketed, would you attribute that to a freak occurance as well?
You're failing to grasp some very simple concepts here. The word you chose there, "skyrocketed," is the antithesis of the truth on this matter. It is the exact opposite of "statistically so small as to be effectively zero."
Also, from a bit of googling I found a site (obviously biased mind, but so is every one I find, The wiki article looks like it's been batted back and forth a bit as well. But still, assuming this is true) the claim is:
Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
I suppose all these people are statistical non entities huh?
I dont really get where you're going with this argument. It just sounds like "The Formula" from Fight Club
f a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C).
A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall.
If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.
That's essentially what was happening, and still happens. The increased payout, via punitive damages, is meant to increase that number so that it becomes more financially viable to choose fixing the problem over ignoring it and just settling when something goes wrong.
With maybe $25k payout for each of those 700 people, versus the 1 billion cups they sold, it was probably running McD's less than one cent of profit per cup sold to just keep doing it the way they wanted...the court sought to change that, such that McDs would value people's safety at a higher level than they currently were. We can argue all day about how much corporations should be required to value the safety of their consumers, but the bottom line is that this is how the system is supposed to work.
The number of people who get killed driving drunk compared to the number of people who drive drunk is propably statistically so small as to be effectively zero.
Except it's not. Alcohol accounts for almost half of all traffic fatalities, and 1 out of 10 people can expect to be in an alcohol-related auto accident at some point in their life. I've never heard of any study that does not conclude a significant increased risk of accident by driving drunk as opposed to sober.
Another example is the defective Firestone tires. Only 41 people died because of the tires. There were thousands of people driving the cars with the defective tires.
Actually at least 271 deaths are linked to the Firestone tires. That's not just "burns" or equivalent accidents/injuries, that's deaths. There were thousands of complaints about dangerous tire separation accidents among the 14.4 million tires they produced. That's several orders of magnitude different than 700 among 10 billion.
Right. It's McDonalds, and only McDonalds, that's discovered the secret to making great coffee is to heat it up to scalding temperatures.
Starbucks is like four times more expensive. McDonald's customers aren't interested in the best beans. They want hot liquid with caffeine at a cheap price. And they prefer it really hot.
Also, doesn't Starbucks still serve coffee at that high a temperature?
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Right. It's McDonalds, and only McDonalds, that's discovered the secret to making great coffee is to heat it up to scalding temperatures.
Starbucks is like four times more expensive. McDonald's customers aren't interested in the best beans. They want hot liquid with caffeine at a cheap price. And they prefer it really hot.
Also, doesn't Starbucks still serve coffee at that high a temperature?
Its been mentioned in regard to this case that no, other chains sell it at a lower temperature than McD's.
The number of people who get killed driving drunk compared to the number of people who drive drunk is propably statistically so small as to be effectively zero.
Except it's not. Alcohol accounts for almost half of all traffic fatalities, and 1 out of 10 people can expect to be in an alcohol-related auto accident at some point in their life. I've never heard of any study that does not conclude a significant increased risk of accident by driving drunk as opposed to sober.
Another example is the defective Firestone tires. Only 41 people died because of the tires. There were thousands of people driving the cars with the defective tires.
Actually at least 271 deaths are linked to the Firestone tires. That's not just "burns" or equivalent accidents/injuries, that's deaths. There were thousands of complaints about dangerous tire separation accidents among the 14.4 million tires they produced. That's several orders of magnitude different than 700 among 10 billion.
Documents obtained from McDonald's also showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burnt by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000 [5]. This represents about one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's.
The coffee incident isn't an isolated case either.
A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some customers like it hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds, "Coffee is traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and I would hope that this is an isolated incident."
Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
For [a previous hot-coffee] case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings.
If you look at that math through non-retarded glasses, you realize that it doesn't say much. They were more than half the sample, so even at equal temperature policies, they should have been 6 or 7 of the 12 hottest. Saying that they were 9 of the 12, and not even the nine hottest (i.e., presumably there were local vendors selling it even hotter), makes me think that they are probably just barely above normal and certainly not ridiculously high.
Also note that the "aromatics" temperature is only 5 degrees less than the "3rd degree scalding" temperature.
Yar on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
Do we have any statistics to this effect. My impression was that companies settle if and only if their court costs + chance of loss is greater than the settlement cost. Additionally, my impression was that companies overwhelmingly win lawsuits vs. individuals. Finally, my understanding is that the great number of torts brought exist between two companies, rather than between an invididual or class and a company.
I don't have figures to this effect, though I might be able to dredge some up. Is it possible that we glom onto the concept of undeserved rewards because it strikes a chord of jealousy, greed and injustice with us, while we rearely even hear of claimiants losing or corp vs. corp actions?
A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some customers like it hotter.
Wow, "some customers." That's not vague at all. Note how the industry still plays it on the safe side for the default settings.
Coffee connoisseur William McAlpin, an importer and wholesaler in Bar Harbor, Maine, who owns a coffee plantation in Costa Rica, says 175 degrees is "probably the optimum temperature, because that's when aromatics are being released. Once the aromas get in your palate, that is a large part of what makes the coffee a pleasure to drink."
Which is an invalid point, considering that a) McDonalds coffee was far hotter than this, and b) McDonalds keeps their coffee at these temperatures far beyond the optimum time.
For [a previous hot-coffee] case, involving a Houston woman with third-degree burns, Mr. Morgan had the temperature of coffee taken at 18 restaurants such as Dairy Queen, Wendy's and Dunkin' Donuts, and at 20 McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's, his investigator found, accounted for nine of the 12 hottest readings.
If you look at that math through non-retarded glasses, you realize that it doesn't say much. They were more than half the sample, so even at equal temperature policies, they should have been 6 or 7 of the 12 hottest. Saying that they were 9 of the 12, and not even the nine hottest (i.e., presumably there were local vendors selling it even hotter), makes me think that they are probably just barely above normal and certainly not ridiculously high.
Is it possible that we glom onto the concept of undeserved rewards because it strikes a chord of jealousy, greed and injustice with us, while we rearely even hear of claimiants losing or corp vs. corp actions?
I think so. I don't think Yar is in this camp...his ideology is such that he really just believes the company should have no liability here. But for the average Joe who always brings this case up when lawyers are mentioned, I think it largely boils down to "some stupid bitch got millions of dollars for spilling coffee on herself."
Is it possible that we glom onto the concept of undeserved rewards because it strikes a chord of jealousy, greed and injustice with us, while we rearely even hear of claimiants losing or corp vs. corp actions?
I think so. I don't think Yar is in this camp...his ideology is such that he really just believes the company should have no liability here. But for the average Joe who always brings this case up when lawyers are mentioned, I think it largely boils down to "some stupid bitch got millions of dollars for spilling coffee on herself."
I thought that way until I started studying economics and tort law, now it makes perfect sense to me.
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.
Do we have any statistics to this effect. My impression was that companies settle if and only if their court costs + chance of loss is greater than the settlement cost. Additionally, my impression was that companies overwhelmingly win lawsuits vs. individuals. Finally, my understanding is that the great number of torts brought exist between two companies, rather than between an invididual or class and a company.
I don't have figures to this effect, though I might be able to dredge some up. Is it possible that we glom onto the concept of undeserved rewards because it strikes a chord of jealousy, greed and injustice with us, while we rearely even hear of claimiants losing or corp vs. corp actions?
From the US Office of Justice (bolding mine):
NUMBER OF FEDERAL TORT TRIALS FELL BY ALMOST 80 PERCENT FROM 1985 THROUGH 2003
WASHINGTON -- The number of tort trials concluded in U.S. district courts declined by nearly 80 percent - from 3,600 trials in 1985 to fewer than 800 trials in 2003, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Approximately nine out of 10 tort trials involved personal injury issues - most frequently, product liability, motor vehicle (accident), marine and medical malpractice cases. The percentage of tort cases concluded by trial in U.S. district courts has also declined from 10 percent in the early 1970s to 2 percent in 2003.
Although the annual number of tort cases handled by U.S. district courts has fluctuated since 1985 (averaging about 44,770 per year), the number of tort trials and the percentage of cases resolved by trial has steadily declined. The growing use of alternative dispute resolution as well as the increased complexity and costs inherent in taking a case to trial have been identified as contributing factors to the decline in the number of cases decided by a trial before a judge or a jury.
The estimated median damage awards (the amount at which half the awards are higher and half are lower) for plaintiffs who prevailed in tort trials concluded in 2002-2003 was $201,000. The tort trial categories with the highest estimated median damage awards included medical malpractice ($600,000) and product liability ($350,000) cases.
The study examined tort cases completed by either bench or jury trials in U.S. district courts during fiscal 2002-2003 as well as trends in tort case and trial litigation since the 1970s. Tort cases involve plaintiffs claiming injury, loss or damage resulting from a defendant's negligent or intentional acts.
The number of tort cases concluded in federal district courts each year, as measured by trial and non-trial cases closed, has varied from a high of 60,941 cases in 1999, to a low of 23,619 cases in 1976. In 2003, there were 49,166 tort cases completed in district courts. The changes in the tort caseloads reflected the strong influence of product liability cases. In 1999, for example, such cases accounted for 61 percent of all tort matters concluded, with large numbers of asbestos and breast implant cases driving the product liability caseload.
Case dispositions show the frequency with which tort matters are resolved by trial, settlement or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Settlements and other non-trial dispositions accounted for 98 percent of the 98,786 tort cases completed during the 2002-2003 period. A total of 1,647 tort cases (about 2 percent) were concluded by a bench or a jury trial.
The most common types of federal tort trials included motor vehicle accident (20 percent), product liability (13 percent), marine (10 percent) and medical malpractice (10 percent) cases.
Plaintiffs prevailed in nearly half (48 percent) of the tort cases completed by trial in 2002-2003. Plaintiffs won less frequently in tort trials involving medical malpractice (37 percent) and product liability (34 percent) issues.
During fiscal 2002-2003, juries decided about 71 percent of tort trials, while judges handled the remaining 29 percent. Plaintiffs prevailed more frequently in judge trials than in jury tort trials.
Non-asbestos product liability trials declined by about two-thirds from 1990 to 2003. During this period, plaintiffs prevailed in nearly a third of these trials. Since 1991, an average of five asbestos cases per year has been decided by a bench or jury trial in U.S. district courts.
The report, "Federal Tort Trials and Verdicts, 2002-03" NCJ-208713 was written by BJS statistician Thomas H. Cohen. Following publication, the document can be accessed at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fttv03.htm.
Additional information about BJS statistical reports and programs is available from the BJS website at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.
The Office of Justice Programs provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice and assist victims. OJP is headed by an Assistant Attorney General and comprises five component bureaus and two offices: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office for Victims of Crime, as well as the Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education and the Community Capacity Development Office, which incorporates the Weed and Seed strategy and OJP's American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk. More information can be found at www.ojp.usdoj.gov.
Yar is getting worked up over nothing. He's taking swings at shadows.
Irond: Most inter-company problems are resolved via contract law or company law.
No, because then he would have said "McDonald's accounted for all of the top nine temperatures." Saying "9 of the 12" strongly implies that there were others out there that were higher than the 20 McDonald's he tested.
McDonalds accounts for 52% of the sample, but 75% of the worst offenders.
Or you could say that they were 52% of the overall sample, and 42% of the coolest samples. Which makes it sound a whole lot different. Or, even better, you could say that at least 3 local shops were found to be serving coffee hotter than a majority of the McDonalds were. It's all bullshit statistical maneuvering, regardless. Also, anyone want to comment on the fact that Liebeck's attorney was the one performing these tests?
Also, FYI, to this day Starbucks still recommends 175F to 185F, which causes 3rd degree burns (for which they occasionally settle) and is almost identical to McDonald's and the NCA's 180F - 190F standard at the time, and much hotter than McDonald's current post-litigation standards.
Another factoid: there have been 12 hot coffee burn cases that went to court, and 11 were thrown out. The twelfth if this McD's one. A notable example is McMahon v. Bunn-o-matic. The coffee in that 3rd degree burn case was determined to be exactly 179F, which is in the lower end of Starbuck's current guidelines.
A notable case in the U.K. is Bogle v. McD's. Here's three of my favorite sections of the judgment:
33. If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.
41. On the basis of Mr. Hathaway's evidence I find that McDonald's serving temperatures were based on what the rest of the catering industry was doing in terms of hot drinks and I infer that what the rest of the industry was doing was endeavouring to meet customers' requirements. Perhaps unsurprisingly there was no evidence that McDonald's serving temperature was unusually hot compared with the serving temperatures adopted by other similar restaurants and outlets. On the material before me therefore I reject the criticisms the claimants have made about McDonald's serving temperatures and for the reasons I have given I propose to answer generic issues (1) and (2) "No".
61. McDonald's were not under a duty to ensure that there were no accidents involving hot drinks. Their duty was to take such steps as were reasonable in the circumstances to avoid or reduce the risk of injury. McDonald's offered the public the facility whereby they could purchase hot drinks to be consumed on or off the premises. This was something the public wanted and inevitably meant that those who bought to consume on the premises would carry their drinks to and place them on a table. There were bound to be times when the restaurants would be serving numbers of people. Lids were placed on the cups at the point of service to retain the contents and help keep them hot. The lids were designed to be removed by the customer who it was reasonably anticipated would want to consume the drink with the lid off. The cups and lids were designed to retain the drink if the cup were tipped over. There was no evidence that it was reasonably feasible for another type of lid or cup to have been designed and manufactured which would have allowed the lid to be easily removed by the customer and at the same time would have retained the hot drink if it dropped to the floor from a table or tray or was knocked over violently. In my judgement, the steps McDonald's took in respect of the cups and lids to avoid injury were reasonably adequate. It was up to those frequenting the restaurants to take care not to drop or knock over hot drinks. The risk that drinks would be dropped or violently knocked over and cause scalding injuries could not be avoided if the facility the public wanted was going to be made available.
FYI: the temperature of the coffee served in this case was 188F to 194F (86C to 90C)
This decision also went on to comment heavily on all the testing McD's and their suppliers performed to ensure that their coffee cups would not leak or or come apart, among other things, when filled with hot liquids, and that the lids were sufficient to prevent a spill if the cup were tipped over. Negligence my ass.
The amount of disinformation about the details of this case is widespread on both sides.
Yar, council for the plaintiff made a better case. They presented strong evidence, and McDonalds did not. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
If you want me to admit that the defense did a shitty job, then I do. They fucked up and presented the facts in a very backwards manner to an emotional jury sympathetic to an old woman.
But do I take it then that you are now agreeing with me that the merits of the case should have warranted a decision in favor of McD's?
Yar, council for the plaintiff made a better case. They presented strong evidence, and McDonalds did not. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
If you want me to admit that the defense did a shitty job, then I do. They fucked up and presented the facts in a very backwards manner to an emotional jury sympathetic to an old woman.
But do I take it then that you are now agreeing with me that the merits of the case should have warranted a decision in favor of McD's?
No. It's obvious McD's felt the same way every time previous. They recognized that this shit was at least partially their fault, and gave people money to cover their expenses. When they decided to try and take it to the court to say "This isn't our fault" the courts said "Nope, sorry, it is, and because you're trying to be assholes about it, we're awarding punitive damages as well."
By paying out *ANYONE* prior to this case, McD's was admitting fault, otherwise, why would they have done it? They should've taken the very first case to court, and shown just how responsible they were being, and this shit would've never happened.
"Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste."
So yes, that is the optimum temperature, if you don't plan on keeping it there for more than 15 minutes. I doubt that this applies to McDonalds.
No, because then he would have said "McDonald's accounted for all of the top nine temperatures."
Did you notice number 9?
Saying "9 of the 12" strongly implies that there were others out there that were higher than the 20 McDonald's he tested.
Which, if true, McDonalds would be more than free to bring up in front of the jury, who would then be able to weigh it.
Or you could say that they were 52% of the overall sample, and 42% of the coolest samples.
Wow, you have the rankings for the coolest now?
Also, FYI, to this day Starbucks still recommends 175F to 185F, which causes 3rd degree burns (for which they occasionally settle) and is almost identical to McDonald's and the NCA's 180F - 190F standard at the time,
Sure, if by "almost identical," you mean "exponentially more likely to cause a burn."
And last I checked, Starbucks doesn't have a drive thru window, which means that everyone who buys their coffee and who wants to add cream will have automatic access to an available counter, where they can set it down accordingly. That's if you choose to add your cream yourself, rather than asking the person at the counter to do it for you. Different business model means different liability.
Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C.
Again, you're confusing cooking temps with serving temps. How many times do people have to point out this basic error before you catch on?
Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers.
Of course not, because at that temperature, you might actually be able to taste it.
This decision also went on to comment heavily on all the testing McD's and their suppliers performed to ensure that their coffee cups would not leak or or come apart, among other things, when filled with hot liquids, and that the lids were sufficient to prevent a spill if the cup were tipped over. Negligence my ass.
Sure, unless you actually wanted to add cream to it. In which catch, all that goes out the window.
By paying out *ANYONE* prior to this case, McD's was admitting fault, otherwise, why would they have done it? They should've taken the very first case to court, and shown just how responsible they were being, and this shit would've never happened.
Because in all the previous cases, a defective cup or coffee maker was involved, or an employee spilled the coffee. In this case, McD's did everything as they were supposed to and made no mistakes.
In every case where it was entirely the victim's fault, and it went to court, the victim lost. Except this one fluke. And the plaintiff accepted an even lower amount from McD's in a settlement after all, because she knew that there was a good chance she'd lose the appeal.
So do I think this is some prime example of the hideousness of tort? No, I think it is a flukish blight upon tort system, but one upon which the entire system need not be judged (especially since the vast majority of cases like this should and do get thrown out).
But do I think McD's was negligent or deserved to lose? No. I think they were in the right.
Yar, council for the plaintiff made a better case. They presented strong evidence, and McDonalds did not. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
If you want me to admit that the defense did a shitty job, then I do. They fucked up and presented the facts in a very backwards manner to an emotional jury sympathetic to an old woman.
But do I take it then that you are now agreeing with me that the merits of the case should have warranted a decision in favor of McD's?
Not in the slightest.
I think that the legal principles considered in the case were sound. I think that the plaintiff presented compelling evidence. I also think that McDs fucked up royaly, a) because they miscalculated by going to trial (corporate hubris) and b) they failed to respond to the evidence properly.
But my own personal view is that McDonalds clearly put profits before customer saftey. This is not an issue of personal responsibility - this is an issue of a company with vast resources putting people's health on a balance sheet to be measured against earnings. In my view, that's unacceptable, and I believe that McDs were rightly punished for that.
Whether or not 80 degrees is "too hot" is irrelevant. We can debate the heat of coffee until the cows come home, but the truth of the matter is that McDonalds believed they were wrong. Their internal documents suggested that they thought it was unsafe, knew it posed a risk to customers, and continued to serve it in spite of that risk. They clearly breached their duty of care to consumers.
Also, FYI, to this day Starbucks still recommends 175F to 185F, which causes 3rd degree burns (for which they occasionally settle) and is almost identical to McDonald's and the NCA's 180F - 190F standard at the time,
Sure, if by "almost identical," you mean "exponentially more likely to cause a burn."
And last I checked, Starbucks doesn't have a drive thru window, which means that everyone who buys their coffee and who wants to add cream will have automatic access to an available counter, where they can set it down accordingly. That's if you choose to add your cream yourself, rather than asking the person at the counter to do it for you. Different business model means different liability.
Starbucks does have drive-thru service in many locations. With you on everything else, though.
If you want me to admit that the defense did a shitty job, then I do. They fucked up and presented the facts in a very backwards manner to an emotional jury sympathetic to an old woman.
It's amazing how you cite the arguments that McDonalds themselves presented, and then claiming they did a bad job of presenting them. Just out of curiousity, which big shot law firm do you work for?
Sure, if by "almost identical," you mean "exponentially more likely to cause a burn."
All temperature increases are exponentially more likely to cause a burn. An increase of 0.000000000000000001 degrees is exponentially more likely to cause a burn. Sophistry rules. Also, 180 = 180, that equation isn't exponentially anything. Finally, all of the temperatures we're discussing here cause 3rd degree burns in two seconds or less, so "exponential" is sort of meaningless.
Again, you're confusing cooking temps with serving temps. How many times do people have to point out this basic error before you catch on?
The fact that you selectively pulled that line out of a court decision I linked and attributed it to me, blatantly out of context, despite my explicit emphasis on other sections shows that you have no interest in a real discussion on this matter. In other words, no, I absolutely have never confused brewing temps with serving temps.
Sure, unless you actually wanted to add cream to it.
Yeah, good point. Adding cream really cools coffee off. So you sort of have to serve it pretty hot if any two-or-more-creamer is ever going to be able to drink warm coffee from your store.
I also think that McDs fucked up royaly, a) because they miscalculated by going to trial (corporate hubris) and b) they failed to respond to the evidence properly.
So they were right, they just did a poor job of handling the accusations against them.
this is an issue of a company with vast resources putting people's health on a balance sheet to be measured against earnings.
I agree with the Bogle case, where they decided that no, McD's was clearly serving it the way people wanted it, the way it was served everywhere else, and that the public wouldn't buy it otherwise. You can call that "measuring health against earnings" but I don't see it that way.
Whether or not 80 degrees is "too hot" is irrelevant. We can debate the heat of coffee until the cows come home, but the truth of the matter is that McDonalds believed they were wrong. Their internal documents suggested that they thought it was unsafe, knew it posed a risk to customers, and continued to serve it in spite of that risk.
The exact same risk all coffee vendors and purchasers of coffee take.
Name some court cases in the US where a person suffered similar burns and lost the case.
I already did. McMahon v. Bunn-o-matic is one. 179F. Third degree burns. Settlements all around. But when it went to court, it was determined that the temperature was reasonable, and that the buyer needs to beware when buying a hot item. Every case like this that has ever gone to trial sided with the defense, except this one exception.
Posts
How the hell was she supposed to get cream and/or sugar into the coffee without removing the lid? Or does wanting coffee that isn't black also make it her fault?
Not a very spill proof lid, since it came off when the server handed it to her son, and her son handed it to her. Try answering my other question, at what point does it become okay for one mistake when handling a foodstuff to result in $20,000 worth of medical bills? Is serving coffee at potentially lethal tempratures ever okay, no matter what the warning on the cup is?
First it's her fault because she was dumb enough to remove the lid. Now it's her fault because she was dumb enough to spill it. If somebody had bumped into her instead of her spilling it herself, would it be her fault for walking? Or perhaps the other guy's fault for not watching where he was going.
It was over in the first page.
I was just about to say.
I dunno, if the warning is explicit, it protects the consumer, but not a bystander, should they trip, fall, and spill it on someone else...but then, should McDonald's be liable for that? I'm torn on the issue. It seems to me that selling an item capable of giving anyone 3rd degree burns is irresponsible at best, and should follow a strict liability rule, wherein it's always their fault, because they're choosing to do something obviously dangerous, that benefits only them.
[quote=Facts About the Case]
- Critics of civil justice often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
- The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.
[/quote]The very question defies my censure of reality. I can imagine all sorts of accidents, with all sort of products I buy and consume every day, which may result in my injury or death. At what point does it become okay? I liked their defense. It becomes ok when you show that a) the product is dangerous because your customers prefer it that way, and b) that the instance of harm is so rare as to be considered freak occurrence - by defintion not a direct result of any policy. The addition of some reasonable consideration to your customers, such as spill-proof lids and warning labels, only strengthens the case.
And as I pointed out early on, you're being an overly smug dickhole if you think this is all open-and-shut. If it was so obviously one way or another, then it would have either been settled early on, or dimsmissed as frivolous early on. Since it was neither, I think it's safe to assume there are good points on both sides.
I hear people still fall for the "X-Ray Vision glasses that only work because the hole is so tiny that they can barely see anything" gag. I've also heard kids comment that certain vegetables taste better when you have a cold, specifically because you can't taste them as well.
The idea that people can rationalize "doesn't taste as bad" with "tastes slightly better" doesn't surprise me.
Right. It's McDonalds, and only McDonalds, that's discovered the secret to making great coffee is to heat it up to scalding temperatures. Obviously, it's the main quality that consumers prefer for it's own merits, since the quality of the beans and what not has no effect on the taste whatsoever. Other restaurants have yet to catch up to McDonalds, however, because they're too stupid to overheat their coffee to boiling temperatures for extended periods of times and then serving it 15-20 degrees higher than everywhere else does. :rolleyes:
If that's the case, then they should have no problem paying such customers off, because hey, statistically it only happens zero percent of the time, which means they pay nothing. :rolleyes:
Do you realize how self-contradictory your point is?
The issue here is gross negligence and arrogance in regards to safety.
Again, you're confusing the cooking temperature with the serving temperature. Pizza ovens can be upwards of 900 degrees. Pizza is supposed to be hot. I wouldn't want to eat a 900 degree pizza, however.
During which point it would quickly cool down.
If you serve millions of customers a day, then a lot of them are going to be old, and a lot of them will wear sweats. McDonalds caters to the lowest common denominator when it comes to food quality, so why isn't it catering in terms of food safety as well? No one forced McDonalds to sell food through te drive thru. Once they made the decision to do so, it's up to them to make sure that their food can safely be handled in a car.
That they hear about. For every third degree burn that gets reported, there are going to be a lot more first and second degree burns that don't.
Would that make it harder to open? If so, then that's a design flaw, if you have to struggle with the mechanism for a highly violatile substance.
When you don't go out of your way to make your product less safe than it has to be.
Why does this sound familiar?
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76jconsumerprobe.phtml
Consumer Reporter: Alright. Fine. Fine. Well, we'd like to show you another one of Mr. Mainway's products. It retails for $1.98, and it's called Bag O' Glass. [ holds up bag of glass ] Mr. Mainway, this is simply a bag of jagged, dangerous, glass bits.
Irwin Mainway: Yeah, right, it's you know, it's glass, it's broken glass, you know? It sells very well, as a matter of fact, you know? It's just broken glass, you know?
Consumer Reporter: [ laughs ] I don't understand. I mean, children could seriously cut themselves on any one of these pieces!
Irwin Mainway: Yeah, well, look - you know, the average kid, he picks up, you know, broken glass anywhere, you know? The beach, the street, garbage cans, parking lots, all over the place in any big city. We're just packaging what the kids want!
Old lady drinks coffee is gets struck by lightning is a freak occurance. Old person spills coffee on herself while in a car, from a restaurant with a drive thru menu, is not.
If McDonalds started selling liquor through a drive-thru window and the DUI rate suddenly skyrocketed, would you attribute that to a freak occurance as well?
Apparently, by adding cream, you sign any and all expectations that the product will be fit for consumption.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I agree. I would have just paid her. It's not like it was a phony neckbrace or something. She was burned all to hell. But that doesn't mean I think the courts were correct to rule negligence.
The consumer product in question was a space heater. It does get way hotter than 185F.
? I don't understand. She was burned, so obviously it didn't cool down fast enough.
Maybe so. But I don't intend to debate facts from your own imagination.
And how do we determine the legal definition of "has to be." It doesn't "have to be" any particular temperature.
You're failing to grasp some very simple concepts here. The word you chose there, "skyrocketed," is the antithesis of the truth on this matter. It is the exact opposite of "statistically so small as to be effectively zero."
In her particular case, yes, the sweatpants were what held enough of the liquid on her to burn her. The other 700/10,000,000,000 cases probably involved other freak occurrences as well. I don't know the specifics. I do know that pretty much all of them involved employees spilling the coffee, and they were not "brushed off," they were settled. In this case, someone's pride probably got the best of them, and they said "fuck no, she opened it and spilled it herself, let's go to court."
P.S. Ironic that you are talking about things which are improbable enough to dismiss.
If the customers prefer something dangerous, they shouldn't get it. If customers wanted burgers with some lead in it, they wouldn't get it.
But they are interested in 3rd degree burns, right?
So we're all agreed. Serving coffee at super high temps is only important when your coffee tastes like crap.
The jury disagrees.
Why not? It was effectively zero. Zero times any number is zero. The verdict could have been a billion dollars, and it would still be effectively zero. Right?
The heater does, the room doesn't. Again, cooking temp vs. serving temp.
Not fast enough for boiling hot liquids, no.
Hey kids, maybe there's more ice beneath the surface of the water. But hey, let's not speculate on stuff from my imagination. :roll:
The jury disagrees. So does all the literature on recomended serving temperatures.
Higher temps result in exponentially higher burn rates. McDonalds served their coffee at much higher temps than their competitors. Ergo, exponentiall higher burn rates. Ergo, skyrocketing.
Also, from a bit of googling I found a site (obviously biased mind, but so is every one I find, The wiki article looks like it's been batted back and forth a bit as well. But still, assuming this is true) the claim is:
I suppose all these people are statistical non entities huh?
I really dont get where you're going with this argument. It just sounds like "The Formula" from Fight Club
That's essentially what was happening, and still happens. The increased payout, via punitive damages, is meant to increase that number so that it becomes more financially viable to choose fixing the problem over ignoring it and just settling when something goes wrong.
With maybe $25k payout for each of those 700 people, versus the 1 billion cups they sold, it was probably running McD's less than one cent of profit per cup sold to just keep doing it the way they wanted...the court sought to change that, such that McDs would value people's safety at a higher level than they currently were. We can argue all day about how much corporations should be required to value the safety of their consumers, but the bottom line is that this is how the system is supposed to work.
Actually at least 271 deaths are linked to the Firestone tires. That's not just "burns" or equivalent accidents/injuries, that's deaths. There were thousands of complaints about dangerous tire separation accidents among the 14.4 million tires they produced. That's several orders of magnitude different than 700 among 10 billion.
- John Stuart Mill
Its been mentioned in regard to this case that no, other chains sell it at a lower temperature than McD's.
http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/suvsafety/ford_frstone/articles.cfm?ID=5413 The coffee incident isn't an isolated case either.
Also note that the "aromatics" temperature is only 5 degrees less than the "3rd degree scalding" temperature.
Do we have any statistics to this effect. My impression was that companies settle if and only if their court costs + chance of loss is greater than the settlement cost. Additionally, my impression was that companies overwhelmingly win lawsuits vs. individuals. Finally, my understanding is that the great number of torts brought exist between two companies, rather than between an invididual or class and a company.
I don't have figures to this effect, though I might be able to dredge some up. Is it possible that we glom onto the concept of undeserved rewards because it strikes a chord of jealousy, greed and injustice with us, while we rearely even hear of claimiants losing or corp vs. corp actions?
Wow, "some customers." That's not vague at all. Note how the industry still plays it on the safe side for the default settings.
Which is an invalid point, considering that a) McDonalds coffee was far hotter than this, and b) McDonalds keeps their coffee at these temperatures far beyond the optimum time.
Or it could be:
1. McDonalds
2. McDonalds
3. McDonalds
4. McDonalds
5. McDonalds
6. McDonalds
7. McDonalds
8. McDonalds
9. Someone else
10. Someone else
11. Someone else
12. McDonalds
McDonalds accounts for 52% of the sample, but 75% of the worst offenders.
I think so. I don't think Yar is in this camp...his ideology is such that he really just believes the company should have no liability here. But for the average Joe who always brings this case up when lawyers are mentioned, I think it largely boils down to "some stupid bitch got millions of dollars for spilling coffee on herself."
I thought that way until I started studying economics and tort law, now it makes perfect sense to me.
From the US Office of Justice (bolding mine):
Yar is getting worked up over nothing. He's taking swings at shadows.
Irond: Most inter-company problems are resolved via contract law or company law.
No it wasn't.
This has nothing at all to do with the discussion. We're talking about serving temperature.
No, because then he would have said "McDonald's accounted for all of the top nine temperatures." Saying "9 of the 12" strongly implies that there were others out there that were higher than the 20 McDonald's he tested.
Or you could say that they were 52% of the overall sample, and 42% of the coolest samples. Which makes it sound a whole lot different. Or, even better, you could say that at least 3 local shops were found to be serving coffee hotter than a majority of the McDonalds were. It's all bullshit statistical maneuvering, regardless. Also, anyone want to comment on the fact that Liebeck's attorney was the one performing these tests?
Also, FYI, to this day Starbucks still recommends 175F to 185F, which causes 3rd degree burns (for which they occasionally settle) and is almost identical to McDonald's and the NCA's 180F - 190F standard at the time, and much hotter than McDonald's current post-litigation standards.
Another factoid: there have been 12 hot coffee burn cases that went to court, and 11 were thrown out. The twelfth if this McD's one. A notable example is McMahon v. Bunn-o-matic. The coffee in that 3rd degree burn case was determined to be exactly 179F, which is in the lower end of Starbuck's current guidelines.
A notable case in the U.K. is Bogle v. McD's. Here's three of my favorite sections of the judgment:
FYI: the temperature of the coffee served in this case was 188F to 194F (86C to 90C)
This decision also went on to comment heavily on all the testing McD's and their suppliers performed to ensure that their coffee cups would not leak or or come apart, among other things, when filled with hot liquids, and that the lids were sufficient to prevent a spill if the cup were tipped over. Negligence my ass.
The amount of disinformation about the details of this case is widespread on both sides.
But do I take it then that you are now agreeing with me that the merits of the case should have warranted a decision in favor of McD's?
No. It's obvious McD's felt the same way every time previous. They recognized that this shit was at least partially their fault, and gave people money to cover their expenses. When they decided to try and take it to the court to say "This isn't our fault" the courts said "Nope, sorry, it is, and because you're trying to be assholes about it, we're awarding punitive damages as well."
By paying out *ANYONE* prior to this case, McD's was admitting fault, otherwise, why would they have done it? They should've taken the very first case to court, and shown just how responsible they were being, and this shit would've never happened.
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
"Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste."
So yes, that is the optimum temperature, if you don't plan on keeping it there for more than 15 minutes. I doubt that this applies to McDonalds.
Did you notice number 9?
Which, if true, McDonalds would be more than free to bring up in front of the jury, who would then be able to weigh it.
Wow, you have the rankings for the coolest now?
Sure, if by "almost identical," you mean "exponentially more likely to cause a burn."
And last I checked, Starbucks doesn't have a drive thru window, which means that everyone who buys their coffee and who wants to add cream will have automatic access to an available counter, where they can set it down accordingly. That's if you choose to add your cream yourself, rather than asking the person at the counter to do it for you. Different business model means different liability.
Again, you're confusing cooking temps with serving temps. How many times do people have to point out this basic error before you catch on?
Of course not, because at that temperature, you might actually be able to taste it.
Sure, unless you actually wanted to add cream to it. In which catch, all that goes out the window.
In every case where it was entirely the victim's fault, and it went to court, the victim lost. Except this one fluke. And the plaintiff accepted an even lower amount from McD's in a settlement after all, because she knew that there was a good chance she'd lose the appeal.
So do I think this is some prime example of the hideousness of tort? No, I think it is a flukish blight upon tort system, but one upon which the entire system need not be judged (especially since the vast majority of cases like this should and do get thrown out).
But do I think McD's was negligent or deserved to lose? No. I think they were in the right.
Not in the slightest.
I think that the legal principles considered in the case were sound. I think that the plaintiff presented compelling evidence. I also think that McDs fucked up royaly, a) because they miscalculated by going to trial (corporate hubris) and b) they failed to respond to the evidence properly.
But my own personal view is that McDonalds clearly put profits before customer saftey. This is not an issue of personal responsibility - this is an issue of a company with vast resources putting people's health on a balance sheet to be measured against earnings. In my view, that's unacceptable, and I believe that McDs were rightly punished for that.
Whether or not 80 degrees is "too hot" is irrelevant. We can debate the heat of coffee until the cows come home, but the truth of the matter is that McDonalds believed they were wrong. Their internal documents suggested that they thought it was unsafe, knew it posed a risk to customers, and continued to serve it in spite of that risk. They clearly breached their duty of care to consumers.
Starbucks does have drive-thru service in many locations. With you on everything else, though.
It's amazing how you cite the arguments that McDonalds themselves presented, and then claiming they did a bad job of presenting them. Just out of curiousity, which big shot law firm do you work for?
All temperature increases are exponentially more likely to cause a burn. An increase of 0.000000000000000001 degrees is exponentially more likely to cause a burn. Sophistry rules. Also, 180 = 180, that equation isn't exponentially anything. Finally, all of the temperatures we're discussing here cause 3rd degree burns in two seconds or less, so "exponential" is sort of meaningless.
The fact that you selectively pulled that line out of a court decision I linked and attributed it to me, blatantly out of context, despite my explicit emphasis on other sections shows that you have no interest in a real discussion on this matter. In other words, no, I absolutely have never confused brewing temps with serving temps.
You know, that's all "olol" and all, but it's getting old and has no merit to begin with.
Yeah, good point. Adding cream really cools coffee off. So you sort of have to serve it pretty hot if any two-or-more-creamer is ever going to be able to drink warm coffee from your store.
So they were right, they just did a poor job of handling the accusations against them.
Several cases have ruled that they do not. One case ruled that they did, and was settled before appeal. But your personal view is what it is.
I agree with the Bogle case, where they decided that no, McD's was clearly serving it the way people wanted it, the way it was served everywhere else, and that the public wouldn't buy it otherwise. You can call that "measuring health against earnings" but I don't see it that way.
The exact same risk all coffee vendors and purchasers of coffee take.
I already did. McMahon v. Bunn-o-matic is one. 179F. Third degree burns. Settlements all around. But when it went to court, it was determined that the temperature was reasonable, and that the buyer needs to beware when buying a hot item. Every case like this that has ever gone to trial sided with the defense, except this one exception.