On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:45:49 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>>> At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
>>> stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
>>> is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
>>> That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
>>> few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
>>> prehensile thighs.
>>
>>
>> The vehicle wasn't moving. Go read up on it.
>>
>> Boron
>
>She was taking the lid off a paper cup of hot coffee which was sitting
>between her legs. That she put it there in the first place was risky, no
>matter if it were 10 degrees cooler or not?

because ten degrees cooler probably means no third degree burns. then
she becomes a putz like the guy with the cheeseburger.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:05:20 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >At least if she were driving she might an excuse for doing something as
>> >stupid as putting a cup of coffee between her legs. the fast of the matter
>> >is that she held her hot coffee between her thighs in a moving vehicle.
>> >That is why she was scalded. It didn't really matter if the coffee was a
>> >few degrees hotter that the average coffee, only that she thought she had
>> >prehensile thighs.
>>
>> The vehicle wasn't moving. Go read up on it.
>
>
>If the car was not moving, how did it get from the drive thru window to
>where they claimed they stopped momentarily. I can just imagine. They are
>driving a long.... hold it a sec, I have to add the creamer.... come to a
>full stop. the story just doesn't add up. What sort of a moron tries to
>hold a styrofoam cup of coffee between their knees?

god damn it, it doesn't matter whether the woman was stupid or not.
they were selling a product for human consumption that at point of
sale caused third-degree burns. you see nothing wrong with that?

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:09:40 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Ms P wrote:
>
>>
>> She put the coffee between her knees and took the lid off to add cream and
>> sugar. The cup collapsed and dumped the coffee in her lap. She recieved
>> 3rd degree burns. The car was not moving.
>>
>> http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
>
>
>Frankly, if it had been a fatal accident she should have made it in the
>Darwin Awards. Think about it for a second..... holding a styrooam cup
>between her legs..... of course it spilled. The round and formed lid would
>add some strength to it, but even the stupidest people know that Styrofoam
>cups are easily crushed.

and everyone knows that if you spill coffee on yourself you can expect
a trip to the hospital and third degree burns. that just the way it
is.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:37:56 -0700, Reg > wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:30:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>When I brew coffee at home I have a reasonable expectation that it will be
>>>HOT. I've never checked the temperature but I do know if I spill it on
>>>myself I'm going to get burned. Personal responsibility aside, what
>>>happened to common sense?
>>>
>>>Jill
>>>
>>
>> ...and you don't serve it when it's still hot enough to cause third
>> degree burns. apparently you have more common sense than mcdonald's.
>>
>
>
>More like, don't eat or drink something until it's cooled down
>enough. Something most of us learned as children.
>
>McD's sells food to go. Hotter is better for those that don't want
>cold coffee by the time they get to the office. Don't want it
>that hot? Wait a few minutes.
>
>By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous. Food is
>often hot enough to hurt you straight out of the oven. It usually
>is, actually. By your logic that makes it a dangerous practice
>requiring government intervention.

if mcdonald's had the cups marked 'danger! do not attempt to drink
coffee until you get to your office!' then no problem. that's not the
way it was sold.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:36:34 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> so in your view the company has no responsibility whatsoever? someone
>> harmed by a company's action must find the individual employee
>> responsible and force him to make it good?
>
>OK, if you insist. As far I am concerned the only "responsible" thing
>that McD's could do (in this case) is fire the employee(s) that made the
>*alleged* mistake, thereby putting some poor sucker(s) out of a job. I
>am fairly sure that the employees in question didn't "plan the downfall
>of the company" by putting cheese on a couple of burgers. Gimme a break!
>Mr Allergic-to-Cheese is a "chancer" and that is putting it politely.

i hold no brief for the cheese ding-dong. you were speaking
generally, saying, well accidents happen, you can't expect the company
to bear any responsibility. and i expect mcdonald's will survive long
after mr. allergy accidently inhales a cheeto and dies.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
>
> >If the state thinks there is a problem they have the authority to enact
> >legislation or to pass regulations to prohibit or to control the practice.
> >That was not the case, so what the courts are doing with punitive damages
> >in essentially fining them for something that is not illegal. Perhaps
> >punitive damages should be limited to cases where the defendant was shown
> >to have disobeyed the law.
>
> um, it's illegal to maim people with your products?

Good point. If the person at the takeout window had reached in and dumped
hot coffee on the driver's lap your point would apply. The hot coffee case
was a matter of consumer stupidity.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> i can see you've read about the case extensively. she wasn't driving.
> and as i recall, the court did apportion some blame to her. they just
> thought it a tad unreasonable to be selling a product *intended to be
> drunk* that could cause third-degree burns. jeez, these crazy judges.


Of course it is intended to be drunk. Most people test their hot beverages
to see how hot they are, sip at them slowly until they cool off a bit, and
then finish them off before they are too cold. I have yet to see a halfway
intelligent person take a hot coffee and hold it between their legs while
they pull the lid off. A person could get hurt doing that.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> >If the car was not moving, how did it get from the drive thru window to
> >where they claimed they stopped momentarily. I can just imagine. They are
> >driving a long.... hold it a sec, I have to add the creamer.... come to a
> >full stop. the story just doesn't add up. What sort of a moron tries to
> >hold a styrofoam cup of coffee between their knees?
>
> god damn it, it doesn't matter whether the woman was stupid or not.
> they were selling a product for human consumption that at point of
> sale caused third-degree burns. you see nothing wrong with that?


Of course it matters if the woman was stupid. It was her stupidity that led
her to hold a styrofoam coffee cup between her legs when anyone with a
brain would realize how risky that is. Would you be as sympathetic if she
were to have been handed a hot coffee and knocked it back in one fast
gulp? I hope not, because any fool knows better than to do that with a hot
drink.

Maybe we can link this to the moron who claims he almost died from a
cheeseburger. If she had ordered an iced coffee drink or a cold drink and
opened it thinking it was supposed to be cold than she could hold the
restaurant responsible for mixing up the order. But I suppose brains enter
into it once again because a person should be able to tell if the hot drink
you ordered is really hot and should be handled carefully.

Lucky for her she didn't order one of those hot apple pies and get one
fresh out of the fryer.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> >Frankly, if it had been a fatal accident she should have made it in the
> >Darwin Awards. Think about it for a second..... holding a styrooam cup
> >between her legs..... of course it spilled. The round and formed lid would
> >add some strength to it, but even the stupidest people know that Styrofoam
> >cups are easily crushed.
>
> and everyone knows that if you spill coffee on yourself you can expect
> a trip to the hospital and third degree burns. that just the way it
> is.

I trust that you are not being serious. People expect hot drinks to be hot.
They try to handle them careful. Watch people opening the lids on coffee
cups. It is no surprise that they make efforts not to spill it on
themselves and usually hold them carefully in one hand away from things
they don't want hot coffee to spill on. Not this woman. She stuck it
between her legs to take the top off. I bet you no one else here would do
that.

blake murphy wrote:

>
> i hold no brief for the cheese ding-dong. you were speaking
> generally, saying, well accidents happen, you can't expect the company
> to bear any responsibility. and i expect mcdonald's will survive long
> after mr. allergy accidently inhales a cheeto and dies.

I hold no brief with the cheese ding-dong either. However, your broken
shift-key really gets on my nerves.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

blake murphy wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:37:56 -0700, Reg > wrote:
>
>>
>>More like, don't eat or drink something until it's cooled down
>>enough. Something most of us learned as children.
>>
>>McD's sells food to go. Hotter is better for those that don't want
>>cold coffee by the time they get to the office. Don't want it
>>that hot? Wait a few minutes.
>>
>>By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous. Food is
>>often hot enough to hurt you straight out of the oven. It usually
>>is, actually. By your logic that makes it a dangerous practice
>>requiring government intervention.
>
>
> if mcdonald's had the cups marked 'danger! do not attempt to drink
> coffee until you get to your office!' then no problem. that's not the
> way it was sold.


LOL. You have five senses. They were made to do just this
kind of thing.

You need a sign to help you make it through your meal
unharmed?

Anyone who needs a sign to tell them their food might be hot,
and what their response should be, should not be allowed out
in public by themselves.

--
Reg

Reg wrote:

> Anyone who needs a sign to tell them their food might be hot,
> and what their response should be, should not be allowed out
> in public by themselves.

There are IMO some things for which companies should not be responsible to
provide warnings. One of them is that hot beverages can scald. Given the
sympathetic view that some people have toward the unfortunate victim's
personal carelessness I have to wonder how they would deal with a customer
in a steak house who held a steak knife by the blade instead of the handle
and sustained a serious cut. I would hate to see a person like the coffee
lady in on of those places that provides customers with a small Sterno
burner to cook satay, or a seafood restaurant with a candle heated pot of
melted butter. Heaven forbid she have fondue and stick a wad of melted
cheese in her mouth without someone there to warn her that melted cheese is
hot.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Reg wrote:
>
>>Anyone who needs a sign to tell them their food might be hot,
>>and what their response should be, should not be allowed out
>>in public by themselves.
>
> There are IMO some things for which companies should not be responsible to
> provide warnings. One of them is that hot beverages can scald. Given the
> sympathetic view that some people have toward the unfortunate victim's
> personal carelessness I have to wonder how they would deal with a customer
> in a steak house who held a steak knife by the blade instead of the handle
> and sustained a serious cut. I would hate to see a person like the coffee
> lady in on of those places that provides customers with a small Sterno
> burner to cook satay, or a seafood restaurant with a candle heated pot of
> melted butter. Heaven forbid she have fondue and stick a wad of melted
> cheese in her mouth without someone there to warn her that melted cheese is
> hot.

That's precisely the point. A customer can and should have a reasonable
expectation that they'll be protected from danger resulting from product
use, or at least to be informed of any hazards. However, this is always
subject to a reasonableness test.

Is it reasonable to expect that a customer will understand on their
own, without outside help, that hot food may be too hot to consume
instantaneously?

Of course it is. It's not as if preparing food is the exclusive province
of professionals. It's something all of us do everyday, even if it's
just cooking popcorn in a microwave, or brewing coffee. It's perfectly
reasonable to expect that the concept of "too hot to eat at this moment"
is part of a normal human being's experience and understanding.

The fact that hot food may be hot is beyond obvious.

--
Reg

Reg wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:37:56 -0700, Reg > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> More like, don't eat or drink something until it's cooled down
>>> enough. Something most of us learned as children.
>>>
>>> McD's sells food to go. Hotter is better for those that don't want
>>> cold coffee by the time they get to the office. Don't want it
>>> that hot? Wait a few minutes.
>>>
>>> By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous. Food is
>>> often hot enough to hurt you straight out of the oven. It usually
>>> is, actually. By your logic that makes it a dangerous practice
>>> requiring government intervention.
>>
>>
>> if mcdonald's had the cups marked 'danger! do not attempt to drink
>> coffee until you get to your office!' then no problem. that's not
>> the way it was sold.
>
>
> LOL. You have five senses. They were made to do just this
> kind of thing.
>
> You need a sign to help you make it through your meal
> unharmed?
>
> Anyone who needs a sign to tell them their food might be hot,
> and what their response should be, should not be allowed out
> in public by themselves.

Agreed. When I brew coffee at home I have the reasonable expectation that
it will be HOT. Call me crazy... even when I make iced coffee (a nice
refreshing drink on this 105 degree day!) it starts off hot. So does iced
tea, for that matter.

Reg wrote:
>
>
> > lady in on of those places that provides customers with a small Sterno
> > burner to cook satay, or a seafood restaurant with a candle heated pot of
> > melted butter. Heaven forbid she have fondue and stick a wad of melted
> > cheese in her mouth without someone there to warn her that melted cheese is
> > hot.
>
> That's precisely the point. A customer can and should have a reasonable
> expectation that they'll be protected from danger resulting from product
> use, or at least to be informed of any hazards. However, this is always
> subject to a reasonableness test.

I would suggest that McDonalds has provided their customers with reasonable
protection. They serve the coffee in an insulated cup and they put a
plastic cover over it to prevent spills. The top is secure enough that it
will stay on even if inverted, but can be easily removed holding the cup in
one hand and the lid in another. They are not so firmly attached that you
need to hold the cup between your knees to pry it off.

> Is it reasonable to expect that a customer will understand on their
> own, without outside help, that hot food may be too hot to consume
> instantaneously?

They would be whining and bitching if it were served colder.

ChattyCathy wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Ms P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady
>>>>> because she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her
>>>>> pants and the hot liquid was held against her skin which helped
>>>>> extend the burn time on such tender skin. She was an idiot for
>>>>> putting a hot cup of coffee in between her legs while driving.
>>>> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The
>>>> car was stopped.

Which (Mrs. P) makes her even more of an idiot. Who spills coffee in a not
moving car and then sues McDonald's because it spilled in her lap?! God,
I'd love to get you on a jury next time I do something stupid and decide to
blame someone else for it.

Cathy, I drive a low-end Hyundai. It has a cup holder and a CD player. And
no, I don't mistake my CD player for a cup holder <G> See you in chat!

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> ChattyCathy wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> Ms P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady
>>>>>> because she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her
>>>>>> pants and the hot liquid was held against her skin which helped
>>>>>> extend the burn time on such tender skin. She was an idiot for
>>>>>> putting a hot cup of coffee in between her legs while driving.
>>>>> Thus proving you don't know the facts. She wasn't driving. The
>>>>> car was stopped.
>
> Which (Mrs. P) makes her even more of an idiot. Who spills coffee in a
> not
> moving car and then sues McDonald's because it spilled in her lap?! God,
> I'd love to get you on a jury next time I do something stupid and decide
> to
> blame someone else for it.
>
> Cathy, I drive a low-end Hyundai. It has a cup holder and a CD player.
> And
> no, I don't mistake my CD player for a cup holder <G> See you in chat!
>
> Jill
>

She didn't sue because it spilled. She sued because it caused 3rd degree
burns over a considerable portion of her body. If they had just paid her
medical bills to start with she wouldn't have sued. But you wouldn't know
any of that since you haven't read the facts of the case.

I'm sure millions of people have spilled hot coffee on themselves. But they
did not recieve 3rd degree burns. The whole crux of the case was the
temperature of the coffee. McDonalds even admitted they held coffee at a
hotter temp than industry standards.


Ms P

jmcquown said...

> Reg wrote:
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:37:56 -0700, Reg > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> More like, don't eat or drink something until it's cooled down
>>>> enough. Something most of us learned as children.
>>>>
>>>> McD's sells food to go. Hotter is better for those that don't want
>>>> cold coffee by the time they get to the office. Don't want it
>>>> that hot? Wait a few minutes.
>>>>
>>>> By your ridiculous standard, home cooking is dangerous. Food is
>>>> often hot enough to hurt you straight out of the oven. It usually
>>>> is, actually. By your logic that makes it a dangerous practice
>>>> requiring government intervention.
>>>
>>>
>>> if mcdonald's had the cups marked 'danger! do not attempt to drink
>>> coffee until you get to your office!' then no problem. that's not
>>> the way it was sold.
>>
>>
>> LOL. You have five senses. They were made to do just this
>> kind of thing.
>>
>> You need a sign to help you make it through your meal
>> unharmed?
>>
>> Anyone who needs a sign to tell them their food might be hot,
>> and what their response should be, should not be allowed out
>> in public by themselves.
>
> Agreed. When I brew coffee at home I have the reasonable expectation
that
> it will be HOT. Call me crazy... even when I make iced coffee (a nice
> refreshing drink on this 105 degree day!) it starts off hot. So does
iced
> tea, for that matter.


I've skipped out on most of the thread since the beginning where I shared
my piece of mind but, realize it or not, here's a wonderful look into jury
deliberations behind closed doors.

Sorry only that it's exaggerated with more than 12 jurors. Still, imho,
it's a heathly thing to debate. The human condition being what it is, from
time to time.

I KNOW we all could reach a verdict about Jeremy without even entering a
courtroom.

Maybe it'll happen like that, OR not!

Andy

>
> Suppose you went to a hardware store and asked for 1000 pound cable
> and they sold you 250 pound cable, and as a result someone was killed.
> Should you have checked?
>

Suppose also if someone handed you a gun and said it was
unloaded...common sense tells you to doublecheck anyways.

jmcquown wrote:
>
>
> Which (Mrs. P) makes her even more of an idiot. Who spills coffee in a not
> moving car and then sues McDonald's because it spilled in her lap?! God,
> I'd love to get you on a jury next time I do something stupid and decide to
> blame someone else for it.

LOL That reminds me of a woman who used to be in my riding class. She was a
retired school principal. Her horse was acting up one day and the
instructor was yelling at her to smack the horse with her crop. She held it
up and hesitated a few times and then finally gave it a gentle tap. I told
her that I wished she had been my principal when I got the strap.

Ms P wrote:
>
>
> She didn't sue because it spilled. She sued because it caused 3rd degree
> burns over a considerable portion of her body. If they had just paid her
> medical bills to start with she wouldn't have sued. But you wouldn't know
> any of that since you haven't read the facts of the case.
>
> I'm sure millions of people have spilled hot coffee on themselves. But they
> did not recieve 3rd degree burns.


That is because the others were not stupid enough to try to hold the cup
between their knees while removing the top. It should also be noted that
she was wearing sweat pants. That alone could explain how she managed to do
something so stupid. It was because the coffee soaked into her sweat pants
that she was so badly burned. Perhaps she should have suited the sweat shop
that made them.

> The whole crux of the case was the temperature of the coffee. McDonalds even admitted they held coffee at a
> hotter temp than industry standards.

Not really. The crux of the case was that she held the coffee between her
knees when she removed the top.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Ms P wrote:
>>
>>
>> She didn't sue because it spilled. She sued because it caused 3rd degree
>> burns over a considerable portion of her body. If they had just paid her
>> medical bills to start with she wouldn't have sued. But you wouldn't
>> know
>> any of that since you haven't read the facts of the case.
>>
>> I'm sure millions of people have spilled hot coffee on themselves. But
>> they
>> did not recieve 3rd degree burns.
>
>
> That is because the others were not stupid enough to try to hold the cup
> between their knees while removing the top. It should also be noted that
> she was wearing sweat pants. That alone could explain how she managed to
> do
> something so stupid. It was because the coffee soaked into her sweat pants
> that she was so badly burned. Perhaps she should have suited the sweat
> shop
> that made them.


So what you're saying is coffee that's hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns
if spilled on your lap while you're wearing sweat pants will somehow not
cause 3rd degree burns if spilled down your front while walking across the
dining room in McDonalds? Coffee that hot causes 3rd degree burns in 2 to 7
seconds. No matter what you're wearing.
>
>> The whole crux of the case was the temperature of the coffee. McDonalds
>> even admitted they held coffee at a
>> hotter temp than industry standards.
>
> Not really. The crux of the case was that she held the coffee between her
> knees when she removed the top.

If that was true she wouldn't have won. The jury only found her 20%
responsible.


Ms P

In article > ,
says...
> Subject: Another McDonald's Lawsuit
> From: Reg >
> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > Reg wrote:
> >
> >>Anyone who needs a sign to tell them their food might be hot,
> >>and what their response should be, should not be allowed out
> >>in public by themselves.
> >
> > There are IMO some things for which companies should not be responsible to
> > provide warnings. One of them is that hot beverages can scald. Given the
> > sympathetic view that some people have toward the unfortunate victim's
> > personal carelessness I have to wonder how they would deal with a customer
> > in a steak house who held a steak knife by the blade instead of the handle
> > and sustained a serious cut. I would hate to see a person like the coffee
> > lady in on of those places that provides customers with a small Sterno
> > burner to cook satay, or a seafood restaurant with a candle heated pot of
> > melted butter. Heaven forbid she have fondue and stick a wad of melted
> > cheese in her mouth without someone there to warn her that melted cheese is
> > hot.
>
> That's precisely the point. A customer can and should have a reasonable
> expectation that they'll be protected from danger resulting from product
> use, or at least to be informed of any hazards. However, this is always
> subject to a reasonableness test.
>
> Is it reasonable to expect that a customer will understand on their
> own, without outside help, that hot food may be too hot to consume
> instantaneously?
>
>

Your point about "reasonableness" is well taken, and it informs the
McDonald's coffee case.

At essentially any other restaurant in the country, you could spill
coffee on yourself and suffer no more than minor burns. At McD's, and
McD's only, the coffee was so hot that such a spillage would result in
serious disfiguring burns. That in itself is not so bad, but the fact is
that McD's had known about the too hot coffee for a while, they had
quite a few other customers burned, they had been subject to other
lawsuits about burns, and they had been ordered by judges more than once
to reduce the temperature of their coffee. McD's ignored the court
orders and willfully kept serving extremely hot coffee that they knew
could seriously injure their customers.

A "reasonable" customer would assume that McD's coffee is no more
dangerous than coffee served anywhere else.

It's pitiful that you and so many others keep making excuses for a
willfully negligent corporation while remaining ignorant of the facts.
Where is your responsibility?

--
Peter Aitken

Scott said...

> Suppose also if someone handed you a gun and said it was
> unloaded...common sense tells you to doublecheck anyways.


I'd much rather have someone hand me a loaded gun!

Andy

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:58:13 -0500, "Ms P" >
wrote:

>
>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> Ms P wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> She didn't sue because it spilled. She sued because it caused 3rd degree
>>> burns over a considerable portion of her body. If they had just paid her
>>> medical bills to start with she wouldn't have sued. But you wouldn't
>>> know
>>> any of that since you haven't read the facts of the case.
>>>
>>> I'm sure millions of people have spilled hot coffee on themselves. But
>>> they
>>> did not recieve 3rd degree burns.
>>
>>
>> That is because the others were not stupid enough to try to hold the cup
>> between their knees while removing the top. It should also be noted that
>> she was wearing sweat pants. That alone could explain how she managed to
>> do
>> something so stupid. It was because the coffee soaked into her sweat pants
>> that she was so badly burned. Perhaps she should have suited the sweat
>> shop
>> that made them.
>
>
>So what you're saying is coffee that's hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns
>if spilled on your lap while you're wearing sweat pants will somehow not
>cause 3rd degree burns if spilled down your front while walking across the
>dining room in McDonalds? Coffee that hot causes 3rd degree burns in 2 to 7
>seconds. No matter what you're wearing.
>>
>>> The whole crux of the case was the temperature of the coffee. McDonalds
>>> even admitted they held coffee at a
>>> hotter temp than industry standards.
>>
>> Not really. The crux of the case was that she held the coffee between her
>> knees when she removed the top.
>
>If that was true she wouldn't have won. The jury only found her 20%
>responsible.
>
>
>Ms P


Here is a pretty good summary of the case. It does link to a WSJ
article, but at this point, that is a $12 fee. Anyone who wants to
pursue that part can. AS I recall, there were actually two separate
WSJ articles about the case, written by the same women, the second of
which has the most detail and corrects some statements in the

http://www.atla.org/PressRoom/FACTS/...ecase.aspx#WSJ

Basically, the suit was not just about Liebeck, but about McDonald's
making a business decision that they were quite willing to risk such
injuries as a part of their doing business.

Boron

*************
Nearly ten years later, critics of civil justice and juries continue
to mock Stella Liebeck and the McDonald's coffee case, calling it
'frivolous' and 'laughable'. However, it was McDonald's own testimony
and actions that led a jury to rule against it. And Stella's
injuries–which included 3rd degree burns across her groin, inner
thighs, and buttocks–were no laughing matter.

Related Features:

AAJ Past President Howard Twigg’s June 1997 ‘President’s Page’ on the
McDonald’s Case

Letter from the Hon. Robert Hayes Scott regarding this case (Feb. 7,
1997)

This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow

Facts About the Case

*

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger
seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's
coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a
Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.
*

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.

Stella Liebeck's Injury and Hospitalization

*

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.
*

Liebeck suffered burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks,
and genital and groin areas.
*

She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical
removal of tissue).

Stella Liebeck's Initial Claim

* Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's
refused.

McDonald's Attitude

* During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more
than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992.
Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to
Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the
extent and nature of this hazard.

* McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a
consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees
Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
o Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower
temperatures than at McDonald's.
o Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Damaging Testimony

*

McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above
and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it
would burn the mouth and throat.
*

The quality assurance manager further testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while
burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the
"holding temperature" of its coffee.
*

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to
human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a
full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.
*

Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward
155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature
decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee
at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to
avoid a serious burn.

*

McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to
work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's
own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.
*

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and
that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its
customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from
the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a
"warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not
warn customers of the hazard.

According to The Wall Street Journal

A Jury of One's Peers

*

The Wall Street Journal wrote (September 1, 1994), "The
testimony of Mr. [Christopher] Appleton, the McDonald's executive,
didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that
McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't
consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had
decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns,
even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he
testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee
policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in
restaurants.' "
*

The Journal quoted one juror, Jack Elliott, remarking after the
trial that the case had been about such "callous disregard for the
safety of the people."
*

The Journal story continued, "Next for the defense came P.
Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from
the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's
either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were
statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of
coffee McDonald's sells annually. To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be
saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns
didn't matter because they were rare. 'There was a person behind every
number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough
importance to that,' says juror Betty Farnham."
*

At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens told the
Journal, he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle
a coffee spill."
*

By the end of the trial, Betty Farnham told the Journal, "The
facts were so overwhelmingly against the company. They were not taking
care of their customers."

The Verdict

*

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This
amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20
percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7
million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's
coffee sales.
*

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee
at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees
Fahrenheit.
*

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to
$480,000—or three times compensatory damages—even though the judge
called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to
remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

Ms P wrote:
>
> >
> > That is because the others were not stupid enough to try to hold the cup
> > between their knees while removing the top. It should also be noted that
> > she was wearing sweat pants. That alone could explain how she managed to
> > do
> > something so stupid. It was because the coffee soaked into her sweat pants
> > that she was so badly burned. Perhaps she should have suited the sweat
> > shop
> > that made them.
>
> So what you're saying is coffee that's hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns
> if spilled on your lap while you're wearing sweat pants will somehow not
> cause 3rd degree burns if spilled down your front while walking across the
> dining room in McDonalds?

Is it? Try reading it again and point out where I said those words.

> Coffee that hot causes 3rd degree burns in 2 to 7
> seconds. No matter what you're wearing.

I have spilled hot coffee on myself many times and never suffered 2nd or
3rd degree burns. Try an experiment at home. Slop a bit of hot coffee over
the rim of a cup into your hands and see if you get 3rd degree burns. Slop
a little onto your shirt and see if you get third degree burns. Then do
something really dumb like holding it between your knees while sitting in a
car seat and spilling it toward you so that it flows down into your crotch.
Then do it while wearing sweat pants that sop up that hot liquid like a
sponge. And if you are the type of 70 year old that wears sweat pants they
are probably tight, so it holds all that scalding hot liquid against your
skin.



> > Not really. The crux of the case was that she held the coffee between her
> > knees when she removed the top.
>
> If that was true she wouldn't have won. The jury only found her 20%
> responsible.


Count me among those who consider the jury to have been idiots. AFAIAC it
was entirely her fault because she was stupid enough to hold a disposable
cup full of hot coffee between her knees while she removed the top.

BTW.... those lids have special perforations that can be pulled off so that
you can pour the cream in and drink the coffee without removing the lid.
She did not have to remove the entire top.

Peter A wrote:
>
> > Is it reasonable to expect that a customer will understand on their
> > own, without outside help, that hot food may be too hot to consume
> > instantaneously?
> >
> >
>
> Your point about "reasonableness" is well taken, and it informs the
> McDonald's coffee case.
>
> At essentially any other restaurant in the country, you could spill
> coffee on yourself and suffer no more than minor burns.

You would be no more likely to scald yourself on McDonalds coffee than
anyone else's. All coffee is hot enough to scald. That is why people don't
chugalug their coffee as soon as it is served to them. All hot coffee is
more than hot enough to scald. If you spill small amounts on yourself you
are likely to feel it, maybe even get a 1st degree burn.

In this case, the woman stupidly held a full cup of hot coffee between her
knees and slopped it into her crotch while removing the lid. It soaked into
her sweat pants, which absorbed the scalding hot liquid and held it against
her skin.





> At McD's, and
> McD's only, the coffee was so hot that such a spillage would result in
> serious disfiguring burns.

Bullshit.

> That in itself is not so bad, but the fact is
> that McD's had known about the too hot coffee for a while, they had
> quite a few other customers burned,

No doubt. They probably all happened to people who got coffee from the
drive thru window and tried some vehicular acrobatics to open and drink
them while driving.


> A "reasonable" customer would assume that McD's coffee is no more
> dangerous than coffee served anywhere else.


A "reasonable" customer would assume that when they ordered hot coffee the
coffee would be hot.


> It's pitiful that you and so many others keep making excuses for a
> willfully negligent corporation while remaining ignorant of the facts.
> Where is your responsibility?

What is pitiful is that people like you would hold McDonalds responsible
for this woman doing something stupid. She ordered hot coffee. She got hot
coffee. It was served to her in a cup that could be knocked over and even
inverted without losing more than a few drops of coffee. It was served with
a spill proof lid. It was in the process of removing the spill proof lid
that the coffee was spilled. She had tampered with the safety device that
would have prevented the injury.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:11:23 -0500, jmcquown wrote:


> Cathy, I drive a low-end Hyundai. It has a cup holder and a CD player.
> And no, I don't mistake my CD player for a cup holder <G> See you in
> chat!

Heh. Well my car must be even more lower-end then <veg>

To be honest, I don't miss the cup-holder. I hardly ever drink coffee
while in my car - come to think of it, I hardly ever drink coffee
anytime... I do have a CD player in the car tho' - now that I would miss


--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible

blake murphy wrote:

> god damn it, it doesn't matter whether the woman was stupid or not.
> they were selling a product for human consumption that at point of
> sale caused third-degree burns. you see nothing wrong with that?

Damn, so all of the times I have grilled meat my friends could have decided
to shove a smokin'hot spare rib up theyr throat and sue me for x-degree
burns for 2.9 million US$! And every bar in Italy must be sued for 2.9
million US$ for serving smokin' hot espresso coffee! And every serving
machine on this planet should have a temperature limiter to abide paying out
2.9 million US$ to customers...

I go on laughing at the whole story, driving or not, moving or stopped,
asshole or stupid.
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

In article >,
says...

> You would be no more likely to scald yourself on McDonalds coffee than
> anyone else's.
>

Oh please. It may be true now but back whenever their coffee was known
to be way hotter than almost anyone else's and therefore much more
likely to cause serious burns. You aren't even aware of the most basic
facts of the case yet you blather on about it. This fact has been
reported so many times how can you possibly be unaware if it? Or, do you
just ignore facts that do not jibe with your preconceptions? Perhaps you
rely on Rush and his ilk for your news.


--
Peter Aitken

"Vilco" > wrote in message
...
And every bar in Italy must be sued for 2.9
> million US$ for serving smokin' hot espresso coffee!

> Vilco
> Think pink, drink rose'
That's nice to hear that somewhere on this planet they serve hot espresso
coffee.
Geez, it's always a cold cup of swill here -- 2 shots or 3, no difference.
Yes, I've ordered an Americano and asked them to use the boiling tea
water -- makes no difference! LUKE WARM!
DeeDee, complaining as usual

Dee Dee wrote:

>> And every bar in Italy must be sued for 2.9
>> million US$ for serving smokin' hot espresso coffee!

> That's nice to hear that somewhere on this planet they serve hot
> espresso coffee.

And they must, or they would get crazy with all the people complaining that
"coffee is cold!"

> DeeDee, complaining as usual

LOL
--
Vilco
Think pink, drink rose'

jmcquown wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/2x2xq8
>
> So, he ordered two quarter pounders without cheese. And the excuse for this
> lawsuit is he didn't notice it had cheese on it because he was eating in a
> dark room. What?!
>
> If you place a special order shouldn't you check it before you leave the
> establishment? I eat my burgers plain. It's been a long time since I was
> at a McD's but I always checked to make sure my burger was to order before I
> drove off. I guess it's a good thing for McDonald's he didn't order coffee,
> too.
>
> Jill
>
>
Maybe McDonalds should start putting warning labels on all their products:
WARNING...This hamburger may contain cheese, ketchup, pickles, sesame
seeds, etc. We are not responsible if you don't check your order.
Consume at your own risk.

blake murphy wrote:

>> Not true, Blake. Even cooler coffee would have burned this lady because
>> she had it between her legs, and she didn't remove her pants and the hot
>> liquid was held against her skin which helped extend the burn time on
>> such tender skin. She was an idiot for putting a hot cup of coffee in
>> between her legs while driving.
>
> i can see you've read about the case extensively. she wasn't driving.
> and as i recall, the court did apportion some blame to her. they just
> thought it a tad unreasonable to be selling a product *intended to be
> drunk* that could cause third-degree burns. jeez, these crazy judges.
>
> your pal,
> blake
>
My point was that even coffee sold at 7-11, or any other place or brewed
at home, is hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if the held against the
skin long enough. Particularly tender areas of the body and clothing not
removed will certainly be at risk. I do actually hold an ABLS (Advanced
Burn Life Support) certification and understand some of the mechanisms
of burns....

blake murphy wrote:

> god damn it, it doesn't matter whether the woman was stupid or not.
> they were selling a product for human consumption that at point of
> sale caused third-degree burns. you see nothing wrong with that?
>
> your pal,
> blake

Blake, coffee brewed at home is hot enough to do that too.

Goomba38 wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> god damn it, it doesn't matter whether the woman was stupid or not.
>> they were selling a product for human consumption that at point of
>> sale caused third-degree burns. you see nothing wrong with that?
>
> Blake, coffee brewed at home is hot enough to do that too.

Quite so.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Goomba38 wrote:
>
>
> > god damn it, it doesn't matter whether the woman was stupid or not.
> > they were selling a product for human consumption that at point of
> > sale caused third-degree burns. you see nothing wrong with that?
>
>
> Blake, coffee brewed at home is hot enough to do that too.

When this suit was discussed last year several of us measured the
temperature of our home made coffee and it was considerably hotter than
what was reported in the trial.

I am like a lot of other people when it comes to coffee. I like it hot. It
cools off and you polish it off when it is about right. You can always let
it sit and cool, but is is a hassle to heat it up again.

"Goomba38" > wrote

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> god damn it, it doesn't matter whether the woman was stupid or not.
>> they were selling a product for human consumption that at point of
>> sale caused third-degree burns. you see nothing wrong with that?

> Blake, coffee brewed at home is hot enough to do that too.

I used to occasionally scald myself with the coffee at work. OMG
did that hurt, but it was my fault because I wouldn't put a lid on the
coffee
and didn't add the cream until I got back to my cube. Stupid on my part.
That coffee was HOT. But because it would just spill over onto my
hand, it would leave a red area that I'd run under the water fountain.
If I had gloves on that kept the coffee on my skin, things would have
been a lot worse.

Hot coffee is everywhere. I just assume it's going to be friggin hot.
Maybe everyone should operate under that assumption. Even old
ladies in cars. That had to be excrutiating for her, and I'm sorry
about that.

nancy

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:06:42 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Ms P wrote:
>>
>> Coffee that hot causes 3rd degree burns in 2 to 7
>> seconds. No matter what you're wearing.
>
>I have spilled hot coffee on myself many times and never suffered 2nd or
>3rd degree burns. Try an experiment at home.

In 1990, I was in a Burger King while a senior citizen walked his tray
across the room. He had a cup of coffee on the tray. As he walked,
coffee sloshed out of the cup and over the side - onto the neck and
shoulder of a 5 yr old who was seated at a table.

Just so happens I witnessed this from a distance of no more than 4
feet and the kid was a classmate of my kid's. The child who got the
coffee sloshed on him was hospitalized for days, out of school for
weeks and severely burned. Still had the scars when he graduated from
high school.

The senior citizen had no idea whatsoever of what happened and just
kept walking to his table. The kid's mom, to whom it never occurred
such a spill could cause such severe injury, didn't even get the guy's
name.

Try your own experiment at home. I can suggest some body parts you
might want to try them on first.

Boron

Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>
> >I have spilled hot coffee on myself many times and never suffered 2nd or
> >3rd degree burns. Try an experiment at home.
>
> In 1990, I was in a Burger King while a senior citizen walked his tray
> across the room. He had a cup of coffee on the tray. As he walked,
> coffee sloshed out of the cup and over the side - onto the neck and
> shoulder of a 5 yr old who was seated at a table.
>
> Just so happens I witnessed this from a distance of no more than 4
> feet and the kid was a classmate of my kid's. The child who got the
> coffee sloshed on him was hospitalized for days, out of school for
> weeks and severely burned. Still had the scars when he graduated from
> high school.
>
> The senior citizen had no idea whatsoever of what happened and just
> kept walking to his table. The kid's mom, to whom it never occurred
> such a spill could cause such severe injury, didn't even get the guy's
> name.
>
> Try your own experiment at home. I can suggest some body parts you
> might want to try them on first.

This is curious. You have twice posted comments accusing me of being
ignorant of the facts. Now you post one about witnessing an incident where
someone was burned by hot coffee in one of those places, which if we are to
believe the testimony given at the trial, served coffee at a lower
temperature than McDonalds. I have said all along that McDonalds coffee is
no more likely to scald a person than that of other restaurants. She
spilled the coffee because she was bloody careless and she was scalded
because the coffee slopped into her sweat pant clad crotch where the
material retained the heat and held the hot liquid against her skin.