OT: And Now The Rest of the Story...

[Thomas Rogers]

Matt,



I don't think the logic and example you state is applicable.



Products should be save within reason. If a product has been shown to be injurious, even if misused, and a company willfully neglects the issue, then who is going to help the injured? How do products become safer?



Case-in-point (and a much more applicable example), hundreds of kids lose fingers each year in car door closure injuries. Should doors be redesigned so that this can't happen, or should we simply say that it's stupid parents fault and a few hundred fingers a year "isn't so bad?"



BTW, Matt, did you read the whole article? And if so, you think the net-effect of McDonald's lowering their coffee temp is a BAD thing somehow?



TJR

 

[Matt Day]

Yes, I read the article and my first post about this was just that this one side of the story. I'm sure McDonalds could come up with an equally compelling version of the events. The fact they have had 700 people burned (according to your link) over the course of 10 years a drop in the bucket. Apparently at the time of the verdict (again, according to your link) they sold 1.35 million worth of coffee per day...do the math and figure out how many cups of coffee they sold over the same 10 year period and only ended up with 700 burns?



In regard to if I think the fact McDonalds has now lowered the temp of their coffee, I don't know if it's a good thing or not. With posts from maybe 15 different people on this site, at least one has complained that they liked the coffee at the old temp due to the fact he adds cream...After the verdict, the temp of the coffee at the McDonalds in question had apparently dropped to 158 degrees, still hot enough to cause burns.

 

[TomT]

This just in: "Ford announces they will no longer be installing doors on any of their vehicles due to the danger of children's fingers being maimed".

 

[Gavin Allan]

My McDonalds serves coffee the way I like it: Hotter than heck. There wasn't any cooling down at my McDonalds (thank Goodnees!).



Maybe we should all take our portable thermometers and start testing our coffee?



I agree with Rich that if my coffee is 140 degrees, it will get poured out. I want to see the steam!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I agree with what you say, Matt, which is why I asked the question, "does the 30 degrees lower temp make the coffee safer if spilled?" If so, and 70 people per year (that report the problem) get burned with significant less severity, then maybe it is all worth it and a good thing.



155 is the minimum serving temp, trust me, even with the lowered temp, McDonald's is well above that. I still get my McDonald's coffee hotter than it can be drank, even with adding tons of cream (which I don't like).



McDonald's coffee, IMHO, is still too hot.



But then, I learned to drink coffee when I was working a job that gave 10 minute coffee breaks, and that included travel to the coffee shop (road construction). So I am used to having to chug coffee. In a diner you can leave a spoon or two in a cup of hot coffee to get it to appropriate temp sooner. But at McDonald's, there is no downing the cup for several minutes....at least 10 or 15 before you can even start to take anything that would resemble a real slurp of a sip.



TJR

 

[Shelby Crane]

BTW, Matt, did you read the whole article? And if so, you think the net-effect of McDonald's lowering their coffee temp is a BAD thing somehow?

The article says that they kept the temp of the coffee up so they could make a few more cents per cup profit. If they lower their temp, they lower profits, in turn the price per cup goes up.



Now I'm paying 4 cents more per cup because 701 people have tried to add cream and sugar with a steaming hot cup of coffee in their laps.



Just my 2 cents.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Ironbar says:

Now I'm paying 4 cents more per cup because 701 people have tried to add cream and sugar with a steaming hot cup of coffee in their laps.

That would be all well and good, if on average we were paying more for McDonald's coffee, which I don't think they are. Didn't they move to an all-sizes, same low price on coffee several months back? McDonald's has the cheapest/best coffee of all the coffee places I can go (7/11, Cumberland Farms, Wawa, Starbucks, etc).



TJR

 

[Gypsy me]

Yes it was the little old ladys fault for opening the cup (while the vehicle was not in movement) ...but... it was not because she burned "herself" as to why she won...



McDonald and their attorneys arrogance is what won the lady her case and then some. They refused to pay her medical bill of 20,000 ~not much to ask, for what she went through. World wide they make well over that that in profit in the first orders of the day when they are open *guessing on that*



I think it would have all went down different had the Attorneys for McDonalds not felt so confident on this one. They added "insult" to her injury (yes pun in tended)



I also think it is hilarious that the Corp attorneys actually thought, in by showing their facts such as ...having Their "expert" testemony folks state, how many other complaints the company has had in the past ...could actually help their case. ha ha! I bet they were thinking all of these folks complained and this is what we did or didnt do, why should she be treated differenly oh and then to actually state in court (in a case such as this) they had no intentions of lowering the temperture. :lol:



Had they been a bit more conservative about the presentation of their case... who knows the lady may have not gotten a cent.



That was just pure justice at work. Recognize it, we don't see go down like that everyday!



lol: I can just imagine the expression on the lawyers faces :lol:



and no I am not for friviously law suits backing up any court. The judicial system is back logged EVERYWHERE because of silly cases, or lazy court or court system employees *not that all are lazy*



When I first heard of this case...my first thought was *how stupid...Don't you know coffee is hot...hello...once you buy it ~you know it's hot, and extra precaution is needed. duh!*



I'm not for her getting all that money but I am for the system making an example out of McDonalds attitude.



and that got changed quickly so did the temperture :lol:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Very good points Gypsy~me~. I agree completely.

 

[Shelby Crane]

TJR:

That would be all well and good, if on average we were paying more for McDonald's coffee, which I don't think they are. Didn't they move to an all-sizes, same low price on coffee several months back? McDonald's has the cheapest/best coffee of all the coffee places I can go (7/11, Cumberland Farms, Wawa, Starbucks, etc).

My post was an example. Point is, the money McDonalds pays out comes from the consumer. In the end, the consumer is paying for the attorneys, the settlement, and everything between.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Ironman says:

Point is, the money McDonalds pays out comes from the consumer. In the end, the consumer is paying for the attorneys, the settlement, and everything between.

Well that's true for any suit against a company.



That's not a reason to not file lawsuits though, is it?



It might be a good reason to not file frivilous lawsuits. But this one wasn't frivilous, IMHO. It had merit and it created a positive difference (arguably).



TJR

 

[Jerry Johnson]

Where does the madness stop? What if I buy an outboard moter for my boat and chop my foot off with the prop? Is it the manafactures fault? My hot water heater in my house can be turned up to at least 150 degrees. Can I sue the manafacture because I'm too stupid to know how to adjust the temperature? People get real stupid when money is involved. Lawyers would be less interested in accepting lawsuits if they did not stand to gain fiancially. They are not sueing because they are public servants looking out for the well being of the general public, they are sueing to make a fast buck.



Enough ranting!



Jerry

 

[Rick Kent]

If memory serves, another factor in the "outrage" about this case is the initial verdict in the $100 million dollar range before the judge reduced it to a more "sensible" $2.7 million.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Jerry, the "madness" stops where liability and culpability end.



Yes, there have been frivilous lawsuits. I don't think this case is one of those.



The circumstances of this case are that a company had a product, by all standards it wasn't as safe as it could be when misused in a fashion that is likely to occur, injuries were happening that were arguably more severe than they would likely be if the product was brought within standards, and the company ignored incidents of injury with the arguably unsafe and non-standard product.



Those are the facts, as I see them, unemotionally.



The verdict sent the message to the company in a loud and clear fashion: If you know your product could be made safer to protect the user from likely misuse, and you have displayed evidence of injuries occuring because of the unsafe nature of the misused product YOU SHOULD act to change the product, especially if that product is not within common standards, standards that if assumed would make the product more safe.



McDonald's was arrogant (as others have said). They figured with there deep pockets and ability to pay lawyers that the handful of cases a year would just "go away" and they would be able to have the coffee temp at the unreasonable high degree, not because people wanted it that way, but because it better served their bottom-line.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

I have to highly doubt that the "facts" presented in this article are the true facts of the story. According to it, she was sitting in the passenger seat, and to take the lid off the coffee, she held it between her knees. That just doesn't pass the BS sniff test. Why in the world would anyone hold a hot (regardless of whether it's 185 degrees or 155 degrees) cup of coffee with their knees to open it? I'm sorry it happened to her--but anyone who would use such a crazy and dangerous technique to open a coffee cup brought any injuries they sustain upon themselves.



Even if you buy the BS that the temperature setting was enough to incur liability, then according to the article, McDonald's had set the temperature based on the recommendation of an outside consultant who supposedly studied the issue. If that's the case, why is it McDonald's, and not the consultant's, liability? After all, according to the article, "he (the consultant) admitted that he had not evaluated the safety recommendations of that temperature." As a consultant on the subject, that would be part of his responsibility.



Also--Let's, for the sake of argument, say that a $2.7 million dollar punitive fine against McDonald's was warranted--or even the reduced $480,000 amount. (As I've already made clear, I disagree with the validity of this.) What has Stella Lieback done or incurred to deserve to be the recipient of that money? She doesn't deserve it for the injuries--that's what the compensatory damages were for. It could be argued that it should be divvied up among all the burn 'victims', or among all McDonald's coffee customers for supposedly putting them 'at risk', or even to groups like OSHA or the like to aid in their policing of other such dastardly corporate practices (said in full sarcasm mode). But there's no way this should all go to just one individual.

Yes, there have been frivilous lawsuits. I don't think this case is one of those.

I can't disagree with you more. This article only provides further evidence of just how loony and out-of-control this and other verdicts have become.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

BillV,



What difference does it make as to HOW she spilled the coffee on herself? That's a serious question.



Regarding liability should go to the consultants used by McDonald's, then that should have been their defense. It wasn't.



Regarding what has Stella Lieback done to "deserve" the award, that is a good question. Unfortunately in our system punitive damages have to go to someone, and since this wasn't a class action suit, then she "wins". I'm not so sure I would want third-degree lap burns for $1/2M...maybe a full $1M though...



This one isn't loony, it's just the way it is. Your only real complaint here BillV is the amount of the punitive award and who it goes to. The awards HAVE to be high so that they actually punish and therefore change happens. Where the money goes is as it is. Would you rather see corps like this FINED and the money then simply go into the US Treasury, to taxpayers, to all consumers, to those that can prove after the fact to be wronged???



TJR

 

[Bill V]

What difference does it make as to HOW she spilled the coffee on herself? That's a serious question.

It makes all the difference in the world. If you are working with any potentially dangerous substance (and hot coffee, at either 185 or 155, is a potentially dangerous substance), that is contained in a safe container, but you misuse/mishandle that container to make the container unsafe, then it is your misuse/mishandling that caused any damage done by the dangerous substance. And opening a styrofoam cup of coffee using your knees is clearly misuse. It's kind of like a car battery. Battery acid is dangerous, but it is contained in a safe container (the battery). However, if you hit that battery with an axe, and in doing so, you splatter some of the acid on yourself, it's not the fault of the battery manufacturer. (I'll grant that there's a difference here, in that hitting a battery with an axe is malicious misuse, while opening the coffee cup with your knees is not malicious. But it is still misuse, outside the intended design of the container. And it is THAT act of misuse that caused the spill and burn--not the coffee temperature.) For this lawsuit to conclude otherwise does, in fact, maintain this as an example of, to use your words, "an erosion of personal responsibility in this country."

Unfortunately in our system punitive damages have to go to someone, and since this wasn't a class action suit, then she "wins".

So if you're in agreement with this, how can you possibly hold this case up as an example of our system "working"?

 

[Bill V]

Would you rather see corps like this FINED and the money then simply go into the US Treasury, to taxpayers, to all consumers, to those that can prove after the fact to be wronged???

Yes--absolutely. Any of those are better options than to award it to her. If you buy the assertion that the fault of this case lies with McDonald's, then she is due compensatory damages. But any punitive damages need to be directed elsewhere.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I agree BillV that it would be nice and probably better if our legal system worked that way, but it doesn't. I think we both agree that do want to be able to punish corps that do wrong so that they are incented to change. Changing the benefactor of those punitive damages might be a good corporate liability legal reform. I haven't heard of any such reform proposed...have you?



TJR

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

What about the warning on the cups? Don't they all have "Warning, contents may be hot" on them. Or did this happen before those warnings were put on? Another question is, just how much money do you think that she saw from this? I know from alot of the articles I've read from the "tobacco" lawsuits, it's the lawyers that are making it rich. I sure her's got paid.