 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2005Obesity suit may dog McDonald's
Obesity suit may dog McDonald's Court reinstates part of suit accusing the company of tricking kids into eating fattening foods. January 25, 2005: 7:07 PM EST NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court Tuesday revived part of the widely-watched obesity suit against McDonald's Corp. that accuses the world's biggest fast-food company of using misleading advertising to lure children into eating fattening, unhealthy foods. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a trial judge wrongfully threw out certain portions of the complaint in September 2003 on grounds that it lacked information linking the plaintiffs injuries with eating McDonald's foods. The panel did, however, uphold other parts of the dismissal. The appeals court said the proof about injuries could be provided during pre-trial proceedings and did not need to be included in the initial filing. It said it was sending the case back to the trial judge for further proceedings. The ruling comes on the same day that "Super Size Me," a documentary about a man's month-long diet of McDonald's fast food, was nominated for an Oscar. McDonald's said they expected the obesity suit will be thrown out again. "As we have consistently said, common sense tells you this particular case makes no sense. Today's ruling, which is strictly procedural, simply delays the inevitable conclusion that this case is without merit," McDonald's said. "We are confident this frivolous suit will once again be dismissed," McDonald's said. The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who blamed their obesity, diabetes and other health problems on Big Macs and Chicken McNuggets. Sweet said the plaintiffs had not followed detailed instructions he gave when he first threw out the case and told the plaintiffs they could submit a new filing with information backing up their advertising allegations. He said the complaint did not answer such questions as "What else did the plaintiffs eat? How much did they exercise? Is there a family history of the diseases which are alleged to have been caused by McDonald's products." The judge said that without this information McDonald's did not have sufficient information to determine if their foods caused the plaintiffs obesity or if instead the products were only a contributing factor. The suit had raised fears in the food industry of a new wave of tobacco-like litigation against restaurants and manufacturers. Indeed, when the judge threw out the first case, he left the door open to further litigation. In that ruling he referred to Chicken McNuggets as a "McFrankenstein creation" made of elements not used in home cooking. > The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet > dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who blamed their > obesity, diabetes and other health problems on Big Macs and Chicken > McNuggets. If they are younsters how did they get to McDonalds and how did they have the money for McDonalds? To me a youngster is somone under 10 if even. Maybe they should sue McMom and McDad. Angie > > The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet > > dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who blamed their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Angie OK, that cracked me up, but Oh, so true! Lynne A embstop@rushmore.com People refuse to take responsibility for their actions. The same is true at any buffet in town, lots of obese people with obese kids just eating like pigs. It really is sad. >People refuse to take responsibility for their actions. The same is >true at any buffet in town, lots of obese people with obese kids >just eating like pigs. It really is sad. Cute, really cute. There is a big difference between a buffet and a McDonalds, idiot. Children do not get money by themselves. Allowances come from parents. Someone dropped you on your head, didn't they? That would explain that post, mental midget. LV - ------------------------------------------------------ I rode a tank and held a General's rank When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank - - - - Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil - ---------------------------------------- Today's mighty oak is yesterdays nut that held its ground. - - -unknown - ---------------------------------------- >>People refuse to take responsibility for their actions. The same is >>true at any buffet in town, lots of obese people with obese kids >>just eating like pigs. It really is sad. > >Cute, really cute. There is a big difference between a buffet >and a McDonalds, idiot. True, but irrelevant to obesity problems really. Restaurants that have buffets can have fattening food too. >Children do not get money by themselves. Allowances >come from parents. True, but.... if you give a child an allowance, then what it is spent on should be the child's decision. Most kids are out and about with friends at 8 or 9 without parents with them and they can spend their allowance unwisely. However, I would say that a child who eats every meal out at McD's probably needs to be at home for meals more or at least with parents more for meals. As for children having money themselves, my kids could earn money at 11 or 12 by doing chores for neighbors. Kids can have paper routes at this age too though it's not the norm anymore. A preteen or teen who wants to earn money *can* often find ways to do so. I had kids who raked leaves, shovelled snow and collected bottles that had deposits on them (thrown into the trash by some people though I would think they would not do so). I doubt that the boy who is suing did this, but you never know. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits "AngieRose" wrote in message : > If they are younsters how did they get to McDonalds and how did they have > the money for McDonalds? To me a youngster is somone under 10 if even. > > Maybe they should sue McMom and McDad. LOOOOOOOOL, loved this one. Indeed. If you get your kids hooked onto American fast foods, you have no one but yourself to blame, and your kids have no one to blame but YOU. J. > Angie Aw, everybody knows Grimace and Mayor McCheese are mind control experts. W ; ) Someone just needs to get a McLife. W : ) ||| The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert ||| Sweet dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] || || Angie You should wash your moth out with soap. You know darned good and well that would mean accepting personal responsibility, when it's so m uch easier (and more lucrative) to blame someone else. Just ask the smokers who are suing the tobacco companies. -- Peter 270/219/180 website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo >||| The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert >||| Sweet dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >more lucrative) to blame someone else. Just ask the smokers who are suing >the tobacco companies. I so totally agree with you. > ||| The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert > ||| Sweet dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 270/219/180 > website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo lol how silly of me!!!! personal responsiblity, who needs that when you can make lots of money? :oP Angie > ||| The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert > ||| Sweet dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > more lucrative) to blame someone else. Just ask the smokers who are suing > the tobacco companies. Ah, but for the older generation there is a bit of a difference here. The tobacco industry intentionally manufactured a product to be addictive and deliberately lied about it time and again. Not precisely the same thing. You can get McNutrician information in any McDonalds. > -- > Peter > 270/219/180 > website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > Ah, but for the older generation there is a bit of a > difference here. > The tobacco industry intentionally manufactured a product > to be > addictive and deliberately lied about it time and again. I have old tobacco ads up in my office. I like the one that says there has never been a single case of throat irritation from Camels.  Signature00doc >> Ah, but for the older generation there is a bit of a difference here. >> The tobacco industry intentionally manufactured a product to be >> addictive and deliberately lied about it time and again. > > I have old tobacco ads up in my office. I like the one that says there has > never been a single case of throat irritation from Camels. My main problem with the current tort reform movement is the willingness to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't have statistics, for what they are worth, but I am perfectly willing to accept that there are too may frivolous lawsuits. The solution of capping damages does not make sense to me. If a lawsuit is non-frivolous, then the damages should be a deterent to companies with a defective product, not jus5t a cost of doing business. Why not solutions which attempt to separate frivolous from non-frivolous? >> The 2003 ruling marked the second time U.S. District Judge Robert >> Sweet dismissed the case brought on behalf of two youngsters who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Angie Why is it that parents are exempt from responsibility in this issue? These kids don't have jobs so where are they getting access to McDonalds.I didn't set foot in one until I was 14 because before that I didn't have my own money. If you can't be parents you shouldn't have children. LV - ------------------------------------------------------ I rode a tank and held a General's rank When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank - - - - Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil - ---------------------------------------- Today's mighty oak is yesterdays nut that held its ground. - - -unknown - ---------------------------------------- This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee.... People want accountability for actions unless it is their own...if your child is overweight and you let them eat at McDonalds regularly then it is the parent who should be held accountable. I am not so much as sticking up for the big company as sticking up for us parents who actually take responsibility for our actions and understand we are accountable for the health and safety of Our children. WIn $250 in Name brand Children's Software http://www.funpreschooleractivities.com > This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was > too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was > McDonalds thinking serving hot coffee.... Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement was later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a million bucks. >> This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was >> too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a > million bucks. I can't stand how hot their coffee is. It's impossible to drink. I have to remember to ask them to add ice. SignatureBob in CT > > This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was > > too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a > million bucks. The real facts: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement was > > later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Yeah we know, the coffee was hot. Tough sh.t. I don't care if the cup was still bubbling and 211F. Anyone with a cintilla of common sense knows you don't put a hot cup of coffee between your legs. But alas, we're rewarding stupidity. This case was one of the first ones to do so. As far as the judgement, I was right except I didn't know the last part about the final settlement being sealed. > > > Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement > was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > we're rewarding stupidity. This case was one of the first ones to do > so. Anyone with a scintilla of sense knows that McDonald's claims history wrt scalding was so grotesque that the jury had to punish McDonalds. There had been thousands of scalding cases in the past, McDonalds knowingly and purposely continued a very hazardous practice, and, as a result, got burned. > As far as the judgement, I was right except I didn't know the last part > about the final settlement being sealed. >> > Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement >was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >As far as the judgement, I was right except I didn't know the last part >about the final settlement being sealed. Yeah, you were right - it involved hot coffee, and McDonalds liost. Other than that... >>> > Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement >>was [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Yeah, you were right - it involved hot coffee, and McDonalds liost. >Other than that... The actual incident happened in Albuquerque, NM. > > > This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was > > > too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm BTW, the "real facts" according to: Consumer Attorneys of California What a surprise! > > > > This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee > was [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What a surprise! Do not expect McDonalds to tell you the truth. Here are a few more links: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm (check fact #8). http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785 http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b77256026e6.htm However, I do not expect you to change your opinion. >> > > This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee >was [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >What a surprise! Bring on your "facts" - prove where they were wrong. >> This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was >> too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a >million bucks. How much would it be worth to you to spend a week in the hospital with third degree burns to the groin? How about for your mother to do the same? > >> This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was > >> too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > third degree burns to the groin? How about for your mother to do the > same? Especially when McDonalds had a long sordid history of scalding customers. Note that the jury found the plaintiff in this case 20% responsible and reduced the award. After that, the judge reduced it further. Bottom line, McDonald's saw the light and now acts more responsibly by serving coffee at appropriate temperatures. One of the other points that came out at trial is that by using hotter temps, cheaper coffee could be used. IOW, they did it for economics. I apologize for leading the way on getting this topic off topic...Let me first say that I did not say... "Unfortunately, that old bag won a ton of money... the judgement was later reduced a bit on appeal, but I believe it was still over a million bucks." The whole point is if we are going to sue McDonalds for fat food then what about Snickers Bars and Pepsi and all those other companies that sell us on their unhealthy products. We need to be responsible for our kids...that is the bottom line! <snip> > The whole point is if we are going to sue McDonalds for fat food then > what about Snickers Bars and Pepsi and all those other companies that > sell us on their unhealthy products. We need to be responsible for > our kids...that is the bottom line! Most would agree with that sentiment, however, those who don't _must_ be allowed their day in court so their side will be heard and either approved or rejected (and so that the playing field remains level such that neither corporate or individual entity is unduly protected from or exposed to risk). Thus are precedents set and standards established. No, it isn't a perfect system, but it is a giant improvement over what preceded it. Those who call for restricting individuals' --or even entire classes'-- access to the courts over such matters are operating from a corrupt and/or unhealthy agenda; the effect on society of such policies would be comparable to the effect on the body of a steady, uninterrupted diet of Big Macs. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Most would agree with that sentiment, however, those who don't _must_ > be allowed their day in court so their side will be heard and either > approved or rejected They can have their day in court, for about 2 seconds when a responsible and capable judges tosses them out on their ear and charges them for court fees. > Those who call for restricting individuals' --or even entire classes'-- > access to the courts over such matters are operating from a corrupt > and/or unhealthy agenda; Nobody is called for restricting access. My solution is to make it so that plantiffs only collect on actual damages and not on punitive damages. After all, a PUNITIVE damage is suppose to punish the defense, not make the plantiff rich. > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > responsible and capable judges tosses them out on their ear and charges > them for court fees. Only under the circumstances as required by law. As it stands now, the plaintiffs in the McDonald case wil lhave their day in court. > > Those who call for restricting individuals' --or even entire > classes'-- > > access to the courts over such matters are operating from a corrupt > > and/or unhealthy agenda; > > Nobody is called for restricting access. While you may not be, there have been major efforts to do so by the Bush administration and I beleive in California. My solution is to make it so > that plantiffs only collect on actual damages and not on punitive > damages. After all, a PUNITIVE damage is suppose to punish the > defense, not make the plantiff rich. The purpose of punitive damages is to raise the cost of doing something wrong to the point where it is financially wiser to do the right thing. The fact that the plaintiff gets the money is well established in American law, and it serves as a reward for the plaintiff's perserverence and risk taking the defendant to court. Punitive damages are determined by the IRS to be income and taxable. >> Nobody is called for restricting access. I dunno, I might. Or capping awards, or having the cases decided by a judge instead of a jury, or *something*! Seems like everywhere I go, my life is being made just a little less enjoyable because someone, somewhere, decided to file a lawsuit. Just the other day we went to Chili's and I wanted to order Skillet Queso (yum!) and they didn't have it. Instead they had something called "Nachos with cheese dipping sauce" or something equally as bland. Turned out to be the same thing, only the cheese is now served in a dinky little bowl instead of in a skillet. The bowl has to be dinky because without the warm skillet, it gets cold way too fast. Hubby says to me, "You know it's because someone burned themselves on the skillet and sued." Okay, so we don't "know" that, but it's a good guess. Is it that big a deal? No. But I'm tired of it happening over and over again. And it can be a big deal. Entire localities lack local medical care (esp. Obstetrics) because there were so many suits that the malpractice insurance in that area is too high for doctors to handle. Have you ever known someone who made their living off of lawsuits? I mean as the plaintiff, not the lawyer? I have. She hadn't scored it big with a million dollar suit yet, but she was filing $10K and $20K suits left and right. Seems like there could be some "reasonable person" test. Clearly, a reasonable person would know that McDonald's food is fattening. A reasonable person would expect that if you open hot coffee in a moving car, you might get burned. If it doesn't pass the reasonable person test, then the suit should not be brought, and perhaps the plaintiff should face punishment of some kind for bringing it. Please watch your quoting and attributions, as you did not quote anything that I said. My comments are in line. > >> Nobody is called for restricting access. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > know it's because someone burned themselves on the skillet and sued." > Okay, so we don't "know" that, but it's a good guess. It also could be due to Chili's not wanting to spend all that time, money and effort cleaning up thjose skillets. That is also a good guess. Is it that big a > deal? No. But I'm tired of it happening over and over again. > And it can be a big deal. Entire localities lack local medical care (esp. > Obstetrics) because there were so many suits that the malpractice insurance > in that area is too high for doctors to handle. So say the doctors. > Have you ever known someone who made their living off of lawsuits? I mean > as the plaintiff, not the lawyer? I have. She hadn't scored it big with a > million dollar suit yet, but she was filing $10K and $20K suits left and > right. Eventually, such a litigious person gets their comeuppance. > Seems like there could be some "reasonable person" test. Clearly, a > reasonable person would know that McDonald's food is fattening. A > reasonable person would expect that if you open hot coffee in a moving car, > you might get burned. NO reasonable person would expect a cup of coffee to be of a scalding temperature where the provider of the coffee well knows that there have been scaldings and injuries in the past. If it doesn't pass the reasonable person test, then > the suit should not be brought, and perhaps the plaintiff should face > punishment of some kind for bringing it. Yes, they lose. > Please watch your quoting and attributions, as you did not quote anything > that I said. My comments are in line. I apologize. >> Have you ever known someone who made their living off of lawsuits? I >> mean [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Eventually, such a litigious person gets their comeuppance. You don't know that. It's just a trite and tired thing to say anytime someone gets ahead by acting in an innapropriate manner. >> Seems like there could be some "reasonable person" test. Clearly, a >> reasonable person would know that McDonald's food is fattening. A [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > been > scaldings and injuries in the past. So then, *everybody* should be served lukewarm coffee because a few people are too stupid to realize that dumping it in their lap isn't a good idea? > If it doesn't pass the reasonable person test, then >> the suit should not be brought, and perhaps the plaintiff should face >> punishment of some kind for bringing it. > > Yes, they lose. Hardly a punishment. Especially for people like the woman I mentioned above. Heck, she doesn't pay her lawyer if she loses, she's got nothing better to do with her time. So what if she's costing the other party thousands of dollars to defend against her even if they win? What about the small businesses that can't afford fleets of attorneys and just swallow huge settlements? >So then, *everybody* should be served lukewarm coffee because a few people >are too stupid to realize that dumping it in their lap isn't a good idea? http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system. The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries. Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light. According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation. The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you: McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants. McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue. McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible. McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.) McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media. McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years. The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case. Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers Nan > McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a > problem with > the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was > served much > hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other > restaurants. The coffee was hotter than that of other fast food restaurants but it was within the recommendations of the manufacturer for the machines they were using. > McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused > serious [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they never > so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue. 700 out of how many cups served? A corporation the size of McD's has probably had 700 complaints of everything from hair in the soup to alien abductions over the course of a decade. <see #6 below> > McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case > suffered very > serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs > and > buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day > hospital stay. Unfortunate for her but of all the factors that you "set the McD's record straight " types like to mention explaining why she was so prone to serious burns none of them are McD's fault. She chose when and how to open the cup she choose what to wear and her age and relative immobility were not McD's fault. The flip side to her argument - that she had a right to expect to be able to dump a cup of hot coffee in her lap under such circumstances that she would not be able to remove it immediately without incurring damage is ludicrous. > McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department > store clerk [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not > dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. Irrelevant. Whether or not she is generally litigious has no bearing on whether it was McD's fault. Whether she would have sued had the whole thing been handled differently calls into question the wisdom of McD's strategy but not whether they were at fault. > McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager > testified in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > most > customers wouldn't think it was possible. Duh. The guy testified that he knew scalding hot water has a risk of burns. Whether or not hot water can burn is irrelevant (as well as obvious to the point of being silly). The relevant issue is: Did she have a reasonable expectation of dumping the cup in her lap and not getting burned? I know I wouldn't expect that. > McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found > McDonald's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > from the > sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.) Oh please. Juries pitty injured little old ladies and kids and they think bog corporations have all kinds of money to give them. The more relevant fact is that the judge threw their award out and impose don a fraction of what they did. IOW - the experienced jurist who listened to all the same facts they did did not think the jury acted rationally or appropriately. Hmmmm..... 1 billion cups per year - 70 complaints per year - one serious burn known - do the math. How many other things do you do that are that safe? Scratch taking a bath and driving to the McD's from the list. 14,285,714 - number of cups of coffee served to generate one complaint (complaint - not serious injury mind you). 31,025 - number of days in an 85 year life. IOW - If a person got a cup of McDs coffee every single day of their life (from birth) and lived to be 85 years old they would probably go through about something like 460 complete life times before having something happen that compelled them to complain. Odds of dying from botulism 1: 3,000,000 (about 5x more likely than complaining of a cup of McD's coffee) http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/airline/airline2.html Odds of dying on a single airline flight (commercial airliners in the 25 safety records) - 1:6,300,000 (over twice as likely as complaining about a single cup of McD's coffee. You would have to drive continuously for 85 years before your odds of dying in a car crash were the same as the odds of complaining about a single cup of McD's coffee. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm Get the picture? > McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to > $480,000, a > fact not widely publicized in the media. Right - see above. Signature00doc >> McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a >> problem with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >restaurants but it was within the recommendations of the >manufacturer for the machines they were using. However, the manufacturers of the machines weren't the ones serving/selling the coffee to the public. That puts the onus on McDs, not the manufacturer. >> McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused >> serious [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >hair in the soup to alien abductions over the course of a >decade. <see #6 below> It doesn't matter out of how many served. 700 is 700 too many when the corp is choosing to ignore the risk. They chose to ignore by settling the other complaints, so they took the risk they'd get slammed by a bigger complaint. >> McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case >> suffered very [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >she was so prone to serious burns none of them are McD's >fault. Uhm, the facts of her injuries have nothing to do with her being "prone" to any injuries. Those same injuries would have happened to anyone, regardless of what is worn (Denim jeans may be thicker and have *some* bearing on injuries, but even young people don't all wear denim jeans!) >She chose when and how to open the cup Yep >she choose >what to wear Yep >nd her age and relative immobility were not >McD's fault. The temp of the coffee can cause a 3rd degree burn in 2 seconds. Age and immobility are irrelevant. *I* couldn't have avoided such a burn when I was 20 and in superior physical shape than I am now. >he flip side to her argument - that she had a >right to expect to be able to dump a cup of hot coffee in >her lap under such circumstances that she would not be able >to remove it immediately without incurring damage is >ludicrous. No, she had a right to expect that the coffee wouldn't cause the extensive injuries it did cause. It has nothing to do with expecting to dump hot liquids on oneself without damage. >> McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department >> store clerk [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >into question the wisdom of McD's strategy but not whether >they were at fault. Absolutely relevant in that naysayers like to blame a "litigious society" as the cause of the case. Nothing about assigning fault to McDs due to her non-litigious attitude has ever been mentioned. >> McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager >> testified in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >of dumping the cup in her lap and not getting burned? I know >I wouldn't expect that. No, but she did have a reasonable expectation that she wouldn't be injured so extensively. And she had a reasonable expectation that a corporation would excercise a reasonable amount of care about it's products instead of attempting to play the lottery and hoping nobody would sue them. >> McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found >> McDonald's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >facts they did did not think the jury acted rationally or >appropriately. I didn't agree with the initial settlement amount either, but the fact that McDs generates that much in revenues in 2 days of coffee sales tells me that McDs determined such amounts were negligible to their overall financial picture. Nan > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:15:06 -0500, "00doc" > <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > onus on McDs, > not the manufacturer 1) That's debatable. There is a strong argument that if the machine is defective that the manufacturer is responsible. 2) If the machine was being operated within the parameters of a major restaurant supplier then that cast some doubt on the argument about the coffee being served hotter than expected. >>> McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes >>> caused [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > many when > the corp is choosing to ignore the risk. But in all reasonable practical (and statistical) terms 700=0. And how many complaints did they get that the coffee was too cold? One of the links I posted suggests that is the more common complaint. So if you serve a billion cups of coffee and 70 people compalin it is too hot but even more people complain it is too cold what is the company to do? It is perfectly reasonable to continue using the machine as recommended and go with the approximately 1 billion people who didn't complain. >> Unfortunate for her but of all the factors that you "set >> the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > don't all wear > denim jeans!) Even better for me (and McD's)? If anyone would have been injured then all the more reason for her not to expect not to. >> he flip side to her argument - that she had a >> right to expect to be able to dump a cup of hot coffee in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with expecting > to dump hot liquids on oneself without damage. The coffee would have done no damage at all if not dumped in her lap. >> Oh please. Juries pitty injured little old ladies and >> kids [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to their > overall financial picture. No - they followed the recommendations of the manufacturer, the standard practice of the coffee/restaurant industry in general, and the wishes of their customers. Signature00doc > But in all reasonable practical (and statistical) terms > 700=0. Are you asserting that McD's corporate legal department wasn't aware of these 700 suits against them (naturally, these were only the suits brought by scalding coffee; certainly there were other lawsuits)? If you are not asserting such nonsense, do you believe that the legal department couldn't predict an eventual outcome such as is being discussed here? If you don't believe such a thing, why do you suppose the corporation didn't change its standards voluntarily after the first few injured customers? >> But in all reasonable practical (and statistical) terms >> 700=0. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > brought by scalding coffee; certainly there were other > lawsuits)? I didn't say they weren't aware. I'm saying that when one considers the scale of the whole thing it is a negligible amount. > If you are not asserting such nonsense, do you believe > that the legal > department couldn't predict an eventual outcome such as is > being > discussed here? Could they predict that if you serve a billion cups of hot beverage a few of those people will burn themselves? Sure - who wouldn't. I can also foresee that if a few hundred million people a day climb into a metal box and propel themselves at speed of a mile per minute that some will crash and some will die. I can predict a lot of things just like that. So what? > If you don't believe such a thing, why do you suppose the > corporation > didn't change its standards voluntarily after the first > few injured > customers? Because "its standards" were the accepted norm for coffee brewing. The people drinking cups of McD's coffee were accepting the same risks that al coffee drinkers accept whenever they drink their coffee. Furthermore, people want the coffee to be as hot, indeed often hotter, than it is normally brewed so that it will still be hot when they get where they are going. The better question than your is how they exersized so much restraint to not make it even hotter. Signature00doc >>> But in all reasonable practical (and statistical) terms >>> 700=0. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >considers the scale of the whole thing it is a negligible >amount. Get back to us when it's YOUR mother in the hospital with third degree burns. Tell us how negligible SHE is. >> If you are not asserting such nonsense, do you believe >> that the legal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >crash and some will die. I can predict a lot of things just >like that. So what? When people crash their cars into someone, do they say "My bad - should have been looking in your rear view mirror"? >> If you don't believe such a thing, why do you suppose the >> corporation [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >where they are going. The better question than your is how >they exersized so much restraint to not make it even hotter. Funny, that's not what the judge said... > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:47:38 -0500, "00doc" > <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > third degree > burns. Tell us how negligible SHE is. Go stand in a crowd of a billion people and convince us of how not negligible you are. Signature00doc > Go stand in a crowd of a billion people and convince us of > how not negligible you are. Once again, you exemplify your tendency to mischaracterize in order to prove your point. "over one billion sold" doesn't mean that one billion people have walked through McD's doors. A single individual in any large crowd doesn't stand out. 700 individuals, all sporting the same damage do, however. > > Go stand in a crowd of a billion people and convince us of > > how not negligible you are. > > Once again, you exemplify your tendency to mischaracterize in order to > prove your point. "over one billion sold" doesn't mean that one billion > people have walked through McD's doors. heh-heh..if they sold only one per walk in, there would not be an obesity problem.... > A single individual in any large crowd doesn't stand out. 700 > individuals, all sporting the same damage do, however. > >> But in all reasonable practical (and statistical) terms > >> 700=0. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > considers the scale of the whole thing it is a negligible > amount. You cannot logically reach that conclusion unless you know the total circumstances of each claim. > > If you are not asserting such nonsense, do you believe > > that the legal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > crash and some will die. I can predict a lot of things just > like that. So what? The simple fact is that based on McDonald's practices, this incident was reasonably foreseeable. > > If you don't believe such a thing, why do you suppose the > > corporation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > accepting the same risks that al coffee drinkers accept > whenever they drink their coffee. No, they were not. They were being sold coffee which can scald in a few seconds. Other restaurants do not serve coffee that hot. Furthermore, people want > the coffee to be as hot, indeed often hotter, than it is > normally brewed so that it will still be hot when they get > where they are going. The better question than your is how > they exersized so much restraint to not make it even hotter. > > >> But in all reasonable practical (and statistical) terms > > >> 700=0. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You cannot logically reach that conclusion unless you know the total > circumstances of each claim. In this overall situation, the McDonalds legal staff knew that, or had access to the info. And the company continued with their policies for coffee temperature, with a consideration of the financial cost-benefit analysis for the company. And those are the key words: "For The Company." The McDonalds company is in the business of selling fast food to earn a profit. And they viewed the general practice of overheated coffee had more benefits than costs/risks. > > > If you are not asserting such nonsense, do you believe > > > that the legal [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The simple fact is that based on McDonald's practices, this incident was > reasonably foreseeable. Yep. Same with the benefit/cost risk analysis of making/selling cars. Or many other products. If I make/sell power saws, then it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will cut their fingers off with one. And, with a very large number of units sold, I suppose that *any* product could result in at least a few injuries. The issue is not, "Could they foresee possible injuries?" The issue is whether their product presented unreasonable risk during allegedly reasonable use by an allegedly reasonable end-user. In the famous Stella vs McDonalds case, it was ruled that the supplier sold an excessively dangerous product to a reasonable end-user. If Stella had bought a clearly labelled bottle of laundry bleach and then added it to her coffee, then she would have been designated as an UNreasonable end- user, and would have lost in any suit against the bleach supplier. > > > If you don't believe such a thing, why do you suppose the > > > corporation [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, they were not. They were being sold coffee which can scald in a few > seconds. Other restaurants do not serve coffee that hot. This might be viewed as another angle of responsibility, for both sides. For McDonalds, there might be a view of "industry standards" relating to the safety practices of many other coffee providers. OTOH, some people might blame Stella for buying the overheated McDonalds coffee, instead of a safer product from some other supplier. Personally, I view McDonalds coffee as one of the nastiest-tasting that I have ever had, and would tend to go elsewhere if at all possible and reasonable. SignatureGet Credit Where Credit Is Due http://www.cardreport.com/ Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum > No, they were not. They were being sold coffee which can > scald in a > few seconds. Other restaurants do not serve coffee that > hot. Like I said- go ahead and prove that. Post a link that is independant of the suit that states that the standard is something less. Signature00doc >> No, they were not. They were being sold coffee which can >> scald in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >independant of the suit that states that the standard is >something less. The Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati and the federal Consumers Product Safety Commission have reportedly urged the restaurant industry in the past to use lower temperatures, and the American Burn Association reported in 2000 that restaurants generally do sell their coffee at slightly lower temperatures (160 to 180 degrees) and that people at home generally serve coffee at far lower temperatures (130 to 140 degrees). Moreover, an informal survey conducted by McDonald's lawyers in the coffee case reportedly found that local restaurants served their coffee at 160 degrees or less. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >> No, they were not. They were being sold coffee which can > >> scald in a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > coffee case reportedly found that local restaurants served > their coffee at 160 degrees or less. And how many organization urged consumers to put HOT coffee between their legs??? Doan > The Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati and the federal > Consumers Product Safety Commission have reportedly > urged the restaurant industry in the past to use lower > temperatures, Gee - what does that tell you about the "industry standard"? You can't have it both ways. You can't claim McD's was uniquely dangerous and also that the whole industry serves it too hot. If it an industry wide problem then McD's was not unique and hence had no duty to warn. Signature00doc > I didn't say they weren't aware. I'm saying that when one considers > the scale of the whole thing it is a negligible amount. Thus, the amount of the award. Too bad they reduced it. > > do you believe that the legal department couldn't predict an > > eventual outcome such as is being discussed here? > > Could they predict that if you serve a billion cups of hot beverage a > few of those people will burn themselves? What are you talking about? I asked if the legal department at McD's could not reasonably project that eventually there would be a giant jury award against them if they continued selling coffee at temperatures that guaranteed more scalding lawsuits. I have NO idea what question you are answering, so I have nothing in response. > Because "its standards" were the accepted norm for coffee > brewing. This is tiresome. Your assertion has been answered and repeatedly shown to be untrue. The implication that coffee is served at brewing temperatures is also silly. I suggest that you go get coffee at several different places. Diners, upscale restaraunts, McD's, Starbucks, wherever. Take a thermometer with you. Check the temp of the coffee when you get it. See if any of it even approaches the temperatures YOU claim to normal serving temps. You won't believe anyone here. Maybe you'll believe the results of your own experiments. >> Because "its standards" were the accepted norm for coffee >> brewing. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at brewing > temperatures is also silly. Then show just one example. > I suggest that you go get coffee at several different > places. Diners, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it even approaches the temperatures YOU claim to normal > serving temps. Ah, no. You are making the claim. I suggest you prove it. Signature00doc > Because "its standards" were the accepted norm for coffee > brewing. The people drinking cups of McD's coffee were > accepting the same risks that al coffee drinkers accept > whenever they drink their coffee. Many folks here have told you that it's standards for serving were NOT industry norms. If they were, there would be many other cases of coffee causing 3rd degree burns. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care Am I ever glad that I brought up the McDonalds topic...it has been entertaining. One comment I do need to make however is that it is true that the hotter the water the better the cup of coffee. Coffee houses know this and that is usually why they make such hot coffee. The best tasting coffee is made from boiling hot water! At http://coffeefaq.com/coffaq1.htm it states that... According to the SCAA (Specialty Coffee Association of America), the optimal water temperature for coffee is 197.6 - 204.8F for 90% of the contact time. So as much as I love to hear the get it through your thick head comments, the fact is there are LOTS of places serving VERY HOT coffee. Jason Katzenback WIN Over $250 in Children's Software http://www.funpreschooleractivities.com >Am I ever glad that I brought up the McDonalds topic...it has been >entertaining. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and that is usually why they make such hot coffee. The best tasting >coffee is made from boiling hot water! The best concrete is made with lots of water, too - doesn't meant that that's the best time to drive on the resulting road. > Am I ever glad that I brought up the McDonalds topic...it has been > entertaining. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > WIN Over $250 in Children's Software > http://www.funpreschooleractivities.com There is a difference between optimal temperature for brewing and optimal temperature for serving/drinking. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > There is a difference between optimal temperature for > brewing and > optimal temperature for serving/drinking. Hmmmm..... still no references. Signature00doc >> There is a difference between optimal temperature for >> brewing and >> optimal temperature for serving/drinking. > >Hmmmm..... still no references. I think working as a waitress is a reference, you know. Coffee at the places I worked in was most certainly not served at 185 degrees. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits >> Because "its standards" were the accepted norm for coffee >> brewing. The people drinking cups of McD's coffee were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >industry norms. If they were, there would be many other cases of coffee >causing 3rd degree burns. Maybe there aren't that many ignorant people running around thinking HOT coffee won't burn their crotches. >> Because "its standards" were the accepted norm for coffee >> brewing. The people drinking cups of McD's coffee were [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cases of > coffee causing 3rd degree burns. Many have told me that. None have given a citation that didn't reference trial testimony. I on the other hand have given citations suggesting the controversy. The ball is in your court. Signature00doc >The coffee would have done no damage at all if not dumped in >her lap. Wrong. The coffee would have done no damage at all if it had not been scalding. As you so helpfully pointed out, cold coffee wouldn't cause any injuries. Nan > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:01:00 -0500, "00doc" > <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > wouldn't cause > any injuries. It also would not cause any sales. The lady in question could have ordered it with some ice in it if she wanted it cold or even not hot. But she didn't. Why? BECAUSE SHE WANTED IT HOT! She got what she wanted, Then she got clumsy. Then she blamed someone else. Why can't you get it through your head? Coffee is normally brewed and served hot. Whenever any coffee drinker takes a cup of steaming hot coffee freshly brewed right out of the pot they know damned well that if they drink ti too fast or spill it they will get burned. It is a risk they (we) take. Signature00doc >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:01:00 -0500, "00doc" >> <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >It also would not cause any sales. Which is why McDs chose to ignore the previous burns and the recommendations to turn down the temps. >The lady in question >could have ordered it with some ice in it if she wanted it >cold or even not hot. But she didn't. Why? BECAUSE SHE >WANTED IT HOT! She got what she wanted, Then she got clumsy. >Then she blamed someone else. She did not want coffee so hot it would cause a 3rd degree burn in 2 seconds. Nobody ever does. Clumsy? How? She opened the coffee to put cream and sugar into it since McDs doesn't sell it to order, with those things in. McDs expects people to complete this task in a car, since they sell it in a drivethru. >Why can't you get it through your head? Can you? >Coffee is normally >brewed and served hot. Whenever any coffee drinker takes a >cup of steaming hot coffee freshly brewed right out of the >pot they know damned well that if they drink ti too fast or >spill it they will get burned. It is a risk they (we) take. Wrong. Coffee is brewed at higher temps. It is not served at those temps (or it's not *supposed* to be, McDs ignored that recommendation in the name of sales). One can reasonably expect a slight scald from a hot liquid. One should not reasonably expect a 3rd degree burn in 2 seconds. Nan > Wrong. Coffee is brewed at higher temps. It is not > served at those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > degree burn in 2 > seconds. Yet another bleating and braying with no offer of facts. This is getting to be entertaining. Signature00doc <snip> > > Wrong. The coffee would have done no damage at all if it had not > > been scalding. As you so helpfully pointed out, cold coffee > > wouldn't cause any injuries. > > It also would not cause any sales. Irrelevant. The case before the court and the jury was not "How To Increase McDonalds Coffee Sales". > The lady in question could have ordered it with some ice in it if she > wanted it cold or even not hot. But she didn't. Why? Because she wasn't informed that it was hot enough to severely injure and disfigure her. She had a reasonable expectation of not being injured by the product. God, get a clue. If the driveup window clerk had said, "You know, our coffee is so hot it will cause severe burns if you spill it on skin. We've been successfully sued 700 times for burning our customers with coffee just like I'm going to give you; would you like to me to drop an ice cube in it?" The woman would probably have been appalled, and I don't know if she would have taken the clerk up on his offer. But I DO know that she would have been forewarned. And that would have changed the entire outcome I bet. >If the driveup window clerk had said, "You know, our coffee is so hot it >will cause severe burns if you spill it on skin. We've been successfully >sued 700 times for burning our customers with coffee just like I'm going >to give you; would you like to me to drop an ice cube in it?" Problem is, those 700 incidents never made it to public record - McD's settled with a gag order - totally appropriate terminology, considering the source, I would say - buy they went to considerable lengths to be sure that the public was not aware of the danger. When did this happen? I'm asking because all of the McDonalds around here have had signs posted in the drive thru warning that coffee is extremely hot and may cause burns. They have been up for years, every since the first case went to court. Debra > >If the driveup window clerk had said, "You know, our coffee is so hot it > >will cause severe burns if you spill it on skin. We've been successfully [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > considering the source, I would say - buy they went to considerable > lengths to be sure that the public was not aware of the danger. > When did this happen? The events leading the Lieback v. McDonald complaint occurred in Feb., 1992 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. >> When did this happen? > >The events leading the Lieback v. McDonald complaint occurred in Feb., >1992 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I told them but it seems they don't want to hear the truth at all. They would much rather argue about some nutso who couldn't accept the responsibility of her own mistakes. > Why can't you get it through your head? Coffee is normally > brewed and served hot. Whenever any coffee drinker takes a > cup of steaming hot coffee freshly brewed right out of the > pot they know damned well that if they drink ti too fast or > spill it they will get burned. It is a risk they (we) take. Why can't you get it through YOUR head that coffee is not normally served so hot that it will cause 3rd degree burns? Can you find a single other incident where a restauraunt has spilled coffee and caused 3rd degree burns? SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care Coffee IS NORMALLY served hot. I have visited MANY restaurants. They brew coffee into a decanter and when it is brewed it is immediately poured into customers cups. Never have I (or you for that matter) seen a coffee brewing machine in any restaurant with a cooling cycle for cooling coffee before serving. People do not want cool coffee. Many customers poor out what is left in a cup to get a full refill of HOT, not merely warm fresh-brewed coffee. If you pour fresh coffee from ANY restaurant into your lap it will burn you. Same as pouring hot soup, stew or anything else that has a liquid content. To then blame the restaurant is just stupid, and a court that agrees is likewise - stupid. > > Why can't you get it through your head? Coffee is normally > > brewed and served hot. Whenever any coffee drinker takes a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Can you find a single other incident where a restauraunt has spilled > coffee and caused 3rd degree burns? >Coffee IS NORMALLY served hot. I have visited MANY restaurants. They >brew coffee into a decanter and when it is brewed it is immediately poured [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >To then blame the restaurant is just stupid, and a court that agrees is >likewise - stupid. Hot is one thing. Almost boiling and causing burns that require skin grafts is something hotter. Some other little issues that escaped notice by many: 1. The coffeecup lid used by McD's was somewhat difficult to open without spillage. For (I guess) a fraction of a cent more per lid and a little more deisgn time and thought, they could have had a coffeecup lid that resulted in much fewer spills. 2. McD's prior to the famous hot coffee suit had about 600 complaints aboutactual injuries from their coffee, which was hotter than most hot coffee. 3. The plaintiff in the famous suit would have settled for merely the actual medical bills. But McD's response was what I consider to the effect of saying "see you in court". ---------------------------- Those who want to complain about excessive and abusive lawsuits in the USA can find better examples, if all they want to do is stop most excesses and abuses of lawsuits. As an example: The Phen-Fen case. There drug maker was indeed caught with incriminating memos. But how about this: There was a class action, with the plaintiff side having the "class" of plaintiff divided into subclasses having different degrees of heart damage, and the plaintiff's side had predictions for the number of plaintiffs in each subclass. But there were also individual actions, mostly in counties noted for generous juries, and the number of those claiming the degree of heart damage of the highest subclass of the class action exceeded the number predicted by the plaintiff's side of the class action! Not that I have much sympathy for "Big Pharma" - but the main losers of the "Phen-Fen" suits are shareholders of the liable pharmaceutical - which include your and my IRAs, 401Ks, and personal savings that get put into investments! Why should we punish those who save and invest, especially considering that the USA's savings rate is so low as to be arguably a national emergency? - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >If you pour fresh coffee from ANY restaurant into your lap it will burn you. Yes, it will. But will it give you third degree burns or second degree burns? -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > Coffee IS NORMALLY served hot. I have visited MANY restaurants. They > brew coffee into a decanter and when it is brewed it is immediately poured [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > To then blame the restaurant is just stupid, and a court that agrees is > likewise - stupid. Coffee (and soup) get spilled every day. Can you find any other cases where these spills have caused 3rd degree burns? SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >>Coffee IS NORMALLY served hot. I have visited MANY restaurants. They >>brew coffee into a decanter and when it is brewed it is immediately poured [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Can you find any other cases where these spills have caused 3rd degree > burns? Funny you should ask http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2002/04_11/news_upfront1.html > >>Coffee IS NORMALLY served hot. I have visited MANY restaurants. They > >>brew coffee into a decanter and when it is brewed it is immediately poured [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2002/04_11/news_upfront1.html None responsive. I asked about cases involving coffee or soup -- and every single case listed involved severe burns with liquids was from McD's. (I might note, these articles listing suits FILED are meaningless -- anyone can legally file a lawsuit about darn near anything -- so please restrict yourself to cases WON by the plaintifs. (I'd add, just to be annoying, that since I know quite a number of people whose religion forbids them to eat meat, and others whose religion forbids them to eat meat and milk products at the same meal, that the lawsuit over McD's failing to announce that their french fries included meat made a heck of a good point. It was right up there with a local case where it was discovered that a local restaurant was substituing pork for a menu item advertised as being veal. People DO have a right to know what is in their restaurant meals, and one can legitimately expect french fries to be free of beef.) SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >>>>Coffee IS NORMALLY served hot. I have visited MANY restaurants. They >>>>brew coffee into a decanter and when it is brewed it is immediately poured [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > have a right to know what is in their restaurant meals, and one can > legitimately expect french fries to be free of beef.) Maybe if you had read the link I gave you from the las vegas weekly, you would have found that a person was claiming she got 3rd degree burns on cheese sauce from Del Taco. But no!!!! just complain right away. Your last statement was and I quote "Can you find any other cases where these spills have caused 3rd degree burns?" You didn't ask for court judgements!!!! Read more and B-tch less! > >>>>Coffee IS NORMALLY served hot. I have visited MANY restaurants. They > >>>>brew coffee into a decanter and when it is brewed it is immediately [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > judgements!!!! > Read more and B-tch less! I did, however, ask for cases involving LIQUIDS -- not cheese. And you are right -- I didn't originally ask for court judgements. However, since anyone can allege anything when filing a law suit, the FACT that someone filed and said something in their filing is not persuasive. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > I did, however, ask for cases involving LIQUIDS -- not > cheese. Ummmm.......melted cheese and chocolate ARE liquids. Try to keep up. > And you are right -- I didn't originally ask for court > judgements. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is not > persuasive. Oh, the irony! A person who is basing her whole argument on the assertions of the plaintiff (and has offered nothing else but that) is now disparaging courtroom allegations as a source of information. You are right. You have absolutely no basis to discuss any of this. Please stop - or at least find out what a liquid is. It was nice talking to you. Signature00doc > > I did, however, ask for cases involving LIQUIDS -- not > > cheese. > > Ummmm.......melted cheese and chocolate ARE liquids. > > Try to keep up. I disagree, but OK. How about a beverage then? And the main article was about cheese. > > And you are right -- I didn't originally ask for court > > judgements. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It was nice talking to you. I'm using NOT just allegations in court filings, but the finding of the court -- a BIG difference. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >>> I did, however, ask for cases involving LIQUIDS -- not >>> cheese. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I disagree, but OK. Disagreeing with the facts won't change them no matter how hard you try. > How about a beverage then? Ok - it seems like a silly restriction. I mean - whatever you call it it still is a liquid intended to be put int he mouth and swallowed. However even with your silly restriction expamples have been posted. > And the main article was about cheese. There were several listed. I'm not sure how you can pick one out as more important or be dismissive about what type of "liquid meant for consumption" it was. Bottom line - you aksed for examples ane you got them. Now you are trying to change the request by adding nonsensical qualifiers - and even at that you have already been given some examples. It seems that you are not doing well with this silly liitle game. >> Oh, the irony! >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > finding of > the court -- a BIG difference. Boy! You really do insist on wearing your na?vet? on your sleeve, don't you? Can you find any objective evidence at all to suggest that jury "findings" have any relation to the facts they are presented with? They don't. It has been well established. But before you ask me to bother with a search I think it is your turn first. Signature00doc > >>> I did, however, ask for cases involving LIQUIDS -- not > >>> cheese. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > But before you ask me to bother with a search I think it is > your turn first. I read the article you posted. It was about cheese -- which is NOT put in a cup and designed to be drunk. The list of lawsuits filed (NOT successful lawsuits, so it has limited meaning) all of them that invovled scalding with a liquid beverage were from McD's. If you are going to dismiss the court findings (which have at least been through some process to try to separate fact from fiction) as being untrue, then how can YOU submit as evidence suits FILED? SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > > >>> I did, however, ask for cases involving LIQUIDS -- not > > >>> cheese. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > I read the article you posted. It was about cheese -- which is NOT put > in a cup and designed to be drunk. It's put in a container to be consumed, nevertheless! > The list of lawsuits filed (NOT successful lawsuits, so it has limited > meaning) all of them that invovled scalding with a liquid beverage were > from McD's. There are many others. Try this link: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/974131.html Here is a relevant point: "In Indiana "'[u]nreasonably dangerous' refers to any situation in which the use of a product exposes the user or consumer to a risk of physical harm to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it with the ordinary knowledge about the product's characteristics common to the community of consumers." I.C. sec.33- 1-1.5-2(7). Plaintiffs concentrate their energies on an argument that, although they knew that coffee could burn, Bunn's coffee exposed them to harm "to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer" (emphasis added). What we have said about warnings leads us to doubt this line of argument. Several cases, of which Moss v. Crosman Corp., 136 F.3d 1169, 1173-74 (7th Cir. 1998), and Anderson v. P.A. Radocy & Sons, Inc., 67 F.3d 619, 624-26 (7th Cir. 1995), are examples, reject claims under Indiana law that consumers' failure to appreciate the gravity of the damage a product could do made it "unreasonably dangerous", when the consumers understood that the product could cause a serious injury. Still, we need not decide today whether a third degree burn is "harm to an extent beyond that contemplated by the ordinary consumer" who knows that hot liquids burn. " > If you are going to dismiss the court findings (which have at least been > through some process to try to separate fact from fiction) as being > untrue, then how can YOU submit as evidence suits FILED? > -- Must I remind you of the OJ Simpson case? :-) Doan > I read the article you posted. It was about cheese -- > which is NOT > put in a cup and designed to be drunk. > The list of lawsuits filed (NOT successful lawsuits, so it > has limited > meaning) all of them that invovled scalding with a liquid > beverage > were from McD's. 1) I didn't post it. 2) What container you put it in and whether you refer to the act of ingestion as "drinking" or something else does not change the basic fact that it is a liquid - which is what you have asked for. 3) Not all of them were from McD's - try going back and actually reading it. If you come to any hard words (like "liquid") let us know and we will be happy to help. > If you are going to dismiss the court findings (which have > at least > been through some process to try to separate fact from > fiction) The key words being "some process" and "try" - no effective process and little success. > as > being untrue, then how can YOU submit as evidence suits > FILED? Oh, boy! You just don't get it. The courts are a different world designed to settle disputes - not uncover the truth. The best evidence would be something independant of any court procedings. Plenty of this type of evidence has been submitted. The vidence you have asked for has been submitted to you. People have given you the evidence you wanted and other evidence that actually maters. You on the other hand do NOTHING but tweak your requests in some lame attampt to keep people running back to the search engines. Face it: 1) Either your basic vocabulary is in the range of a 5 year old non-English speaking person or your zeal makes it seem so. 2) You don't read the links given in response to you before (mis)characterizing them. 3) You keep comming up with new nonsensical and tortured definitions of what you will find aceptable truth every time your demands are met. 4) You have yet to actually offer anything resembling a fact to suport your assertions. You seem to think that it is acceptable to just continually demanding more and more research of others while doing none for yourself. Welcome to my killfile. - Bye. Signature00doc Obesity and morbid obesity may have various causes. Below, you will find five main causes: Heredity - The obesity gene was discovered in mice in 1994. This gene produces the protein leptin, which contributes to the feeling of satiety (fullness). Mice with the defective gene eat enormous amounts and gain weight. However people who are severely obese appear to have absolutely no anomalies in this specific gene, which means that severe obesity cannot be explained by a single defective gene. However a variety of mechanisms function much less effectively in persons who are obese, such as fat combustion, metabolism, and feelings of hunger and satiety. Positive energy balance - If the same amount of energy is taken in as is required, weight remains stable. If more energy is taken in than is used, some energy is left over. This is called a positive energy balance. This surplus is stored in the fatty tissue.If those fat reserves are never used, there will be an increase in weight. Metabolic disorders -Disorders of the metabolism mechanism, such as that by an underactive thyroid, can also result in obesity or morbid obesity. Social habits - Unbalanced eating, fast-food fatty snacks between meals, portions which are too large and too rich, and soft drinks can all have a negative effect on the energy balance. In addition, people in general do not exercise enough. Psychological factors - The eating habits of many people may also be influenced by their environment. In addition, eating (too much) may offer temporary consolation after a bad experience, or at times of grief or stress. The blow-out after a failed diet is a well-known phenomenon - 'it never works' - which can rapidly land someone who is overweight in a vicious cycle. In case you're too stupid to read the charter, obesity is the result of genetics ONLY! Not some half-baked theory about social habits and pychological factors. SHORT ANSWER: You are off-charter for this newsgroup so f.ck off and don't let me catch you here again l_v - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. - Delores Ibarruri - ------------------------------------------- "Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction." - - Ann Coulter 9/26/2002 - -------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPoYZ7MTgtWhYq7BhEQLbzACfcaJJ1bzx9GzYv/+ikPYuqHVQqHMAnA0S hnAJPnt4FtKqgOyjBlef0M3l =IvWL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Reply > None responsive. I asked about cases involving coffee or soup -- and > every single case listed involved severe burns with liquids was from [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have a right to know what is in their restaurant meals, and one can > legitimately expect french fries to be free of beef.) How about this: http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2002/1stDistrict/November/H tml/1011909.htm > > None responsive. I asked about cases involving coffee or soup -- and > > every single case listed involved severe burns with liquids was from [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2002/1stDistrict/November > /Html/1011909.htm All right! You managed to find ONE case involving burning with hot water at a restaurant. However, the plaintiff lost -- there was a 4 yo doing something that was not forseeable, unlike the McD's case where an elderly woman did something perfectly expected with her coffee. What's more, the plaintiff lost. Got anything remotely close to McD's situation? A person receiving 3rd degree burns from a liquid refreshment while eating in a way that is common? SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > > > None responsive. I asked about cases involving coffee or soup -- and > > > every single case listed involved severe burns with liquids was from [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > not forseeable, unlike the McD's case where an elderly woman did > something perfectly expected with her coffee. You expected someone to put HOT coffee between his/her legs??? Doan > > > > None responsive. I asked about cases involving coffee or soup -- and > > > > every single case listed involved severe burns with liquids was from [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Doan She was steadying it between her knees -- something I've seen a LOT of people do when they add cream and sugar to drive through coffee. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > > > > > None responsive. I asked about cases involving coffee or soup -- and > > > > > every single case listed involved severe burns with liquids was from [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > people do when they add cream and sugar to drive through coffee. > -- But others don't blame McD. for their own STUPIDITY! Doan >> > > > > None responsive. I asked about cases involving coffee or soup -- and >> > > > > every single case listed involved severe burns with liquids was from [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Doan Who do you blame for yours, then? > >> > > > > None responsive. I asked about cases involving coffee or soup -- and > >> > > > > every single case listed involved severe burns with liquids was from [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > Who do you blame for yours, then? MYSELF! Who do you blame for yours? Doan > Why can't you get it through YOUR head that coffee is not > normally > served so hot that it will cause 3rd degree burns? Cite? Didn't think so. Gee - you would think that such a basic fact as how to serve one of the most common beverages in the world would be all over the Internet. Oh, wait - it is. Signature00doc >> Why can't you get it through YOUR head that coffee is not >> normally [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Didn't think so. How about I provide a cite provided by someone apparently to me on McD's side in a past thread on this issue! Yes, please consider that this is supposed to be on McD's side, although I find it useful for refuting some claims of others on McD's side! http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > Even better for me (and McD's)? If anyone would have been > injured then all the more reason for her not to expect not > to. Had the previous cases been published, you *might* have a (rather pyrrhic) particularity. Unfortunately for you, all cases were settled with McD's-imposed nondisclosure agreements, just like the case in point. Thus, no publicity. >> Even better for me (and McD's)? If anyone would have been >> injured then all the more reason for her not to expect [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thus, no > publicity. Which, of course, is completely irrelevant. Or are you really trying to claim that ignorance of the temperature at which coffee is normally brewed, ignorance of physics, or clumsiness are the fault of McD's? Do they have a duty to point out how stupid some of it cutomer's are? Signature00doc > Which, of course, is completely irrelevant. Not to the point YOU attempting. > are you really trying to claim that ignorance of the > temperature at which coffee is normally brewed, ignorance of > physics, or clumsiness are the fault of McD's? > are you really trying to claim that ignorance of the > temperature at which coffee is normally brewed, ignorance of > physics, or clumsiness are the fault of McD's? No. All of that stuff is completely irrelevant to the case. I'm claiming that customers of a store--any store, including McD's-- have a reasonable expectation of not being severely injured by the products they purchase when those products are purchased and used in a manner commensurate with their nature. I'm claiming that sellers who are previously informed that their product is definitely dangerous and has injured customers in the past have a responsibility to fix the problem, stop selling the product, or pay the penalty. I'm not just talking about scalding hot coffee, either. Thank God juries think the same way. > Or are you really trying to claim that ignorance of the > temperature at which coffee is normally brewed, ignorance of > physics, or clumsiness are the fault of McD's? Uh, I'm pretty clumsy, and I've spilled coffee on myself countless times. From gas stations, Waffle House, etc, though not from McD's. It hurt, but only for a minute or two, and it never needed medical attention. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. >No - they followed the recommendations of the manufacturer, >the standard practice of the coffee/restaurant industry in >general, and the wishes of their customers. Apparently you are using the facts from some lawsuit filed in some other universe - they certainly don't match the facts as published in the McDonalds case on earth. > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:01:00 -0500, "00doc" > <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > published in > the McDonalds case on earth. Feel free to post some citations - like I did. Coffee is normally brewed at 180-200 degrees farenheight. It is normally served immediately after brewing. Either accept those facts, disprove them, or keep impotently whining about them. The choice is yours. Signature00doc >Coffee is normally brewed at 180-200 degrees farenheight. It >is normally served immediately after brewing. Either accept >those facts, disprove them, or keep impotently whining about >them. The choice is yours. Actually, coffee in restaurants is rarely served immediately after brewing. Having worked as a waitress, I can tell you that it is pretty rare for you to get it freshly brewed. The coffee pot sits on the burner for some time before the coffee is served. *************** Standards set by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers require brewing temperatures to fall between 170 degrees and 205 degrees Fahrenheit and holding temperatures to be at least 130 degrees. So at home you are more likely to be getting coffee at between 130 and 170 degrees. ************* The coffee industry has even higher standards. . . . They set a minimum water temperature of 195 degrees and a maximum of 205 degrees. To maintain flavor, coffee must be held at 185 degrees to 190 degrees. The temperature drops by as much as 15 degrees when coffee is poured and loses up to 10 degrees when creaming agents are added. . . . This works for fine for serving coffee inside a restaurant because the coffee is poured into a cup that is not closed with a lid. "To be pleasing as a hot beverage, coffee, tea or soup must be served in a range between 155 degrees to 175 degrees," Richard Wright says. "You have to boil soup to break down the fat, and you must boil [sic] tea and coffee to ex tract flavor, but, obviously, you don't serve at boiling temperature." If McD's had served the coffee at between 155 and 175 degrees there would have been no third degree burns though there still would have been some burns. It certainly seems reasonable given that other suits had been settled that McD's knew of the problem and that there was a reasonable solution they could have taken that would have been find for customers who want hot coffee, but would still have not caused severe damage to those who spilled it. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:54:06 -0500, "00doc" > <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > pot sits > on the burner for some time before the coffee is served. Sure - but do they have a policy of letting it cool down prior to serving? If this is a common restaurant practice you should have no trouble finding an independant reference. Signature00doc >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:54:06 -0500, "00doc" >> <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >If this is a common restaurant practice you should have no >trouble finding an independant reference. I can easily enough find references that the coffee should be held at 185 degrees F until serving. Then again is this for a ceramic cup of significant mass and 20 seconds later the coffee will be more like 155-165 degrees F? I suspect that McD's liked to serve their coffee excessively hot so that people buying it "to go" can have their coffee still hot when they drink it 10-20 minutes or whatever later. Of course I expect few coffee industry experts will put up web pages saying McD's was wrong! http://www.ekitchenshop.com/1/kitchen/item/B00009V6OT is one of a few places to find a coffee urn with adjustable serving temperature anywhere from 130 to 210 degrees. Why would anyone want 130 degree F coffee? My answer: Merely hot and drinkable! Much hotter requires cooling, or would be served hotter in anticipation of being cooled by a non-styrofoam cup or significant time between serving and drinking! - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > Why would anyone want 130 degree F coffee? My answer: Merely hot > and drinkable! Much hotter requires cooling, or would be served > hotter in anticipation of being cooled by a non-styrofoam cup or > significant time between serving and drinking! This from some anti-Stella online site: > The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at > "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk > "immediately". Actually, this is NOT what the NCA recommends, at least not anywhere I could find on their website. They do say that brewed coffee should be "enjoyed" immediately. However, their idea of "enjoyment" is to take time to sniff the aroma (and presumably allow it to cool off for a while). They also recommend that if you are boiling water to make coffee, "Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds." They don't specify if "a minute" means sixty seconds. They do recommend that brewed coffee be maintained at 180-185 degrees, and poured into warm ceramic cups for "enjoyment". Reading the Association's website in the context of this thread, some questions come to mind: How many dieticians and/or doctors participate in the Association? I looked through their board membership, and--son of a gun!--didn't see a single medico listed. Lots of businessmen, though (and I would bet a few lawyers, as well, probably all of them smarter than those working for McD's). How many of the Association members actually drink their coffee at those temperatures? If they don't recommend drinking coffee at those temperatures, why recommend them to be served like that? I'd really like to see any of them put 180 degree fluid into their mouths. If you go to their website (Coffee as Panacea!), you *will* find startling medical information such as: On-Air Food Editor Recommends 3 to 5 Cups/Day for Good Health (more) Coffee Fights Risk of Liver Cancer New Study Finds One or More Cups Slashes Risk by nearly Half (more) Coffee May Cut Diabetes Risk Coffee Confirmed Rich in Antioxidants Study: Coffee, Pregnancy OK Caffeine Boosts Athletes' Performance a pre-exercise coffee before a race can help you run faster or longer or with less pain COFFEE AS DISEASE FIGHTER Some exciting work is showing how coffee may help reduce the risk of a number of diseases and ailments, including Type II diabetes, Parkinson's, colon cancer, cirrhosis, gall stones, depression and more SLUUURRP! Ahhh, medicine! > >> 700 out of how many cups served? A corporation the size > >> of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > recommended and go with the approximately 1 billion people > who didn't complain. The 700 were not complaints, but instances of where people filed claims or suits against McDonalds for scalding injuries. Thus McDonalds was clearly on notice that the coffee that they served was a dangerous instrumentality, and had a legal obligation to 1) warn, 2) prevent further injury. When they did not, they were burned in the suit. > >> Unfortunate for her but of all the factors that you "set > >> the [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > the standard practice of the coffee/restaurant industry in > general, and the wishes of their customers. According to all the websites that address this issue, McDonalds coffee was way hotter than industry standards. > The 700 were not complaints, but instances of where people > filed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > burned in the > suit. So if I go to an ice skating rink, slip and fall on the ice, then sue the rink (and settle) the rink then has a duty to warn people that ice is slippery and to try to prevent them from falling? How many people do you think would go if they sanded the ice? >> No - they followed the recommendations of the >> manufacturer, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > McDonalds > coffee was way hotter than industry standards. Those websites are uniformly quoting the assertions of the plaintif's attourney. The implication is that since the jury found in her favor it must be true. But there are several problems with this assumption: 1) It asumes that the jury accepted this as fact and that this was the basis for the verdict. The truth is that we don't know why they voted as they did. They may have found this assertion to be completely baseless but found for hr for some other reason. 2) It assumes that the jury was acting reaonably and so if they believed it that it must be true. The truth is that we know that in one extremely well qualified opinion (a judge) that the jury was not reasonable in another aspect of the case (the size of the verdict). 3) It assumes that the jury listened to any of the facts and didn't just simply vote out of sympathy for the plaintiff. In fact juries are well known to do this. If you do a search on the subject and find independant commentary on how coffee is normally brewed and served (as I did and someone else did during a pevious debate on this topic on misc.kids) you will find that the McD's coffee was prepared and served as is considered right and proper in the food service industry. The fact that McD's couldn't convince a jury of this is commentary on a lot of things- none of them being whether it is true. Signature00doc > > The 700 were not complaints, but instances of where people > > filed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > from falling? How many people do you think would go if they > sanded the ice? BAAAAD analogy. Ice skaters know that ice is slippery, or otherwise, they could not skate. Further, the rink did nothing out of the ordinary. > >> No - they followed the recommendations of the > >> manufacturer, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > this assertion to be completely baseless but found for hr > for some other reason. I would suspect that the plaintiff offered some form of proof of the proper brewing method, including temperature. > 2) It assumes that the jury was acting reaonably and so if > they believed it that it must be true. The truth is that we > know that in one extremely well qualified opinion (a judge) > that the jury was not reasonable in another aspect of the > case (the size of the verdict). In some states, liability is apportioned by the jury, and in others, liability is apportioned by the judge. > 3) It assumes that the jury listened to any of the facts and > didn't just simply vote out of sympathy for the plaintiff. > In fact juries are well known to do this. You neglect to consider that the jury listened to the list of egregious incidents which McDonalds tried to cover up with non-disclosure settlement agreements and was duly outraged by their persistent behavior. > If you do a search on the subject and find independant > commentary on how coffee is normally brewed and served (as I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a jury of this is commentary on a lot of things- none of > them being whether it is true. >> So if I go to an ice skating rink, slip and fall on the >> ice, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the > ordinary. And coffee drinkers know that it is hot and neither did McD's. Fits perfectly. >> 3) It assumes that the jury listened to any of the facts >> and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > by their > persistent behavior. See you are making my point for me with your obvious bias. Since when is seeking to suppress bad publicity proof of wrong doing or uncommon? The fact that you are accepting at face value that it is suggests that the jury may have also been swayed by this non-evidence. >> If you do a search on the subject and find independant >> commentary on how coffee is normally brewed and served [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> a jury of this is commentary on a lot of things- none of >> them being whether it is true. Lack of response noted. Signature00doc > She chose when and how to open the cup she choose > what to wear and her age and relative immobility were not > McD's fault. Opening the cup was not causative. The temperature of the liquid inside was the cause of the burns. She could easily have opened a glass of room temperature water or iced soda and spilled it without any injury. As a matter of fact, the cups MUST be opened to add the sugar/creamer that McDonalds provides with their coffee. Do you think the solution is requiring McD's to sell their coffee with instructions on how to add sugar/creamer to avoid injury from their product? Maybe it would be better to just turn down the temperature. > Whether she would > have sued had the whole thing been handled differently calls > into question the wisdom of McD's strategy but not whether > they were at fault. So, if your "strategy" results in injury to innocents, you are absolved? Is that right? > The guy testified that he knew scalding hot water has a > risk of burns. Your whole "strategy" seems to be based on mischaracterizing recorded testimony. The man testified that McDonalds was well aware of the possibility of injury previous to the incident. At the very least, that implies neglect, and could quite possibly-- if pushed far enough-- establish intent. > Oh please. Juries pitty injured little old ladies and kids I for one fail to understand why this is a bad thing, since these age groups are documented to be the ones most victimized by others. It is a natural human tendency to protect the weak and infirm. Please disclose why you think that's bad. Which age groups of injured parties would you exclude from the court? >> The guy testified that he knew scalding hot water has a >> risk of burns. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > far > enough-- establish intent. Oh, please. Knowing that if something is misused or an accident occurs it can hurt you makes you responsible? Do your kitchen knives have disclaimers on the handles? >> Oh please. Juries pitty injured little old ladies and >> kids [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > groups are documented to be the ones most victimized by > others. When they reward a baseless lawsuit out of pitty rather than the facts it is a bad thing. Signature00doc > Knowing that if something is misused or an accident occurs it can > hurt you makes you responsible? If I offer an item to the public which, when used in the manner intended, can cause injury, yes, the customer deserves to be informed. This is why, for example, pharmacies routinely consult with their customers who are filling prescriptions. Restaraunt customers have a reasonable expectation to not suffer severe injuries if they spill their drink. It is equivalent to a reasonable expectation not to be served Draino in their milk. > When they reward a baseless lawsuit out of pitty rather than > the facts it is a bad thing. Well, when you serve on a jury in some similar case, you get to make that call. Otherwise, you are not having much success in persuading anyone here to your point of view. Maybe that should tell you something. >> When they reward a baseless lawsuit out of pitty rather >> than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you > something. Ah, what was the name of that logical falacy again? It doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Maybe the fact that every single one of you is totally relying on the same assertion but none of you can back it up should tell you something. i can only think of a few possibilities: 1) You are all just an incredibly polite group that does not want to cause me any embarrassment by posting inconvenient facts. 2) There is just not much information on the web about such an obscure beverage. 3) It is there but you all are too busy to look. 4) It is there but it doesn't support your view. Personally, I think it is probably number one. I have been meaning to thank you for that. -- 00doc > The coffee was hotter than that of other fast food > restaurants but it was within the recommendations of the > manufacturer for the machines they were using. Note that these recommendations are for *making* coffee, not for serving it. >> The coffee was hotter than that of other fast food >> restaurants but it was within the recommendations of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not for > serving it. When, in relation to the making, is coffee normally served? Signature00doc >When, in relation to the making, is coffee normally served? See my other post -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > irrelevant (as well as obvious to the point of being silly). > The relevant issue is: Did she have a reasonable expectation > of dumping the cup in her lap and not getting burned? I know > I wouldn't expect that. I would not expect a normal cup of coffee from a restaurant to be able to deliver 3rd degree burns. And this was NOT the only serious burn, so your other computations are irrelevant. We have no way of knowing how many serious burns there were, since in other cases McD's settled out of court -- undoubtedly with a non-disclosure agreement. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >> irrelevant (as well as obvious to the point of being >> silly). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > restaurant to be able > to deliver 3rd degree burns. Then you would be ignorant of how that coffee is probably made and what that means to your skin. Signature00doc > > McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a > > problem with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > restaurants but it was within the recommendations of the > manufacturer for the machines they were using. My understanding is that McDonald's disabled the temperature regulator. I may be wrong. > > McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused > > serious [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > Right - see above. >>So then, *everybody* should be served lukewarm coffee because a few people >>are too stupid to realize that dumping it in their lap isn't a good idea? [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > Nan One thing that I cannot claim is FACT but is rumor, McDonald's intentionally keeps their coffee this hot as a matter of profit. It takes less coffee grounds to brew at this temperature or some such. > One thing that I cannot claim is FACT but is rumor, McDonald's intentionally > keeps their coffee this hot as a matter of profit. It takes less coffee > grounds to brew at this temperature or some such. Oh, the evil corporation greed! Why don't you take the time and google on how coffee should be made. There is even an ANSI standard for this. In short, *brew at between 195-205 degrees f. *hold at between 175-185 degrees f (185 preferred) *serve between 155-175 degrees f, with temperatures above 160 preferred McDonald is making coffee as it should be made. They got sued because some STUPID lady, wearing a sweat-pant (which absorbed and held the hot liquid to her skin), held a HOT cup between her legs and spilled it! Doan >> One thing that I cannot claim is FACT but is rumor, McDonald's intentionally >> keeps their coffee this hot as a matter of profit. It takes less coffee [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Doan Exactly!!! >> One thing that I cannot claim is FACT but is rumor, McDonald's intentionally >> keeps their coffee this hot as a matter of profit. It takes less coffee [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > *serve between 155-175 degrees f, with temperatures above 160 preferred Yep. A friend had a DnD franchise about the time of the infamous McD's suit. He was *required* by corporate to keep his coffee at 180F +/- 3F. If he was caught with it out of spec he was fined by corporate. > McDonald is making coffee as it should be made. They got sued because > some STUPID lady, wearing a sweat-pant (which absorbed and held the hot > liquid to her skin), held a HOT cup between her legs and spilled it! Sure, but you'll find (as this thread shows) that most are more than willing to blame her stupidity on that big evil corporation. SignatureKeith > So then, *everybody* should be served lukewarm coffee because a few people > are too stupid to realize that dumping it in their lap isn't a good idea? 140-160 degrees F is NOT lukewarm. At my office, we have a faucet on the sink which dispenses water at 190 degrees. It is so hot the faucet has a warning attached to it, informing users that the water *will* cause severe injury. That's just five degrees higher than the McD's coffee that spilled on that woman (and many other customers previously). >> So then, *everybody* should be served lukewarm coffee >> because a few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 140-160 degrees F is NOT lukewarm. It is to a coffee drinker. I sometimes take mine out of the pot and stick it int he microwave for a few seconds to get it a bit warmer sometimes it comes out boiling. > At my office, we have a faucet on the sink which dispenses > water at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > spilled on that > woman (and many other customers previously). Apples and oranges. Faucets do not normally have 190 degree water immediately spew forth when they are turned on. If it was not marked it would be reasonable for a person to turn it on, stick their hand in, and expect the water to gradually warm to a nonscalding temp. Coffee, on the other hand, is normally brewed in the 180+ range. labelling it as "hot" makes about as much sense as labelling concrete "hard". Signature00doc >It is to a coffee drinker. I sometimes take mine out of the >pot and stick it int he microwave for a few seconds to get >it a bit warmer sometimes it comes out boiling. And, of course, you drink it boiling and burn your mouth, right? -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:12:41 -0500, "00doc" > <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And, of course, you drink it boiling and burn your mouth, > right? I blow on it a bit and take a very small sip. If I gulped it or dumped it in my lap I would get burned. I know that and make every effort not to do it. On the rare ocassions in my life when I have burned myself on coffee (or soup or hot pizza) I uttered a few expletives but didn't blame anyone but myself. Signature00doc >I blow on it a bit and take a very small sip. If I gulped it >or dumped it in my lap I would get burned. I know that and >make every effort not to do it. On the rare ocassions in my >life when I have burned myself on coffee (or soup or hot >pizza) I uttered a few expletives but didn't blame anyone >but myself. IOW, you didn't have third degree burns from it, so it was not at the 185 degree temperature. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > It is to a coffee drinker. I sometimes take mine out of the > pot and stick it int he microwave for a few seconds to get > it a bit warmer sometimes it comes out boiling. And your particular preference extrapolates, or should extrapolate to every McD's customer? Is that your point? If you like to put cigarettes out on the back of your hand, that makes it okay for everyone? Some folks like to cut themselves with razors. Does that make it okay for everyone? >> It is to a coffee drinker. I sometimes take mine out of the >> pot and stick it int he microwave for a few seconds to get [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >it okay for everyone? Some folks like to cut themselves with razors. >Does that make it okay for everyone? Certainly it's "okay" for everyone - but they need to be given the choice whether or not they scald, burn, or slash themselves. >> It is to a coffee drinker. I sometimes take mine out of >> the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > extrapolate to > every McD's customer? Is that your point? No - but **I** have posted references suggesting that it is not just my preference. > If you like to put cigarettes out on the back of your > hand, that makes > it okay for everyone? Some folks like to cut themselves > with razors. > Does that make it okay for everyone? OK ? - sure. If a cigarette is put out on the back of my hand it will burn me. I know that and so does everyone else. If I go and do it I really can't blame the manufacturer of the cigarette. Ditto you other example and coffee. Signature00doc >>> It is to a coffee drinker. I sometimes take mine out of >>> the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >do it I really can't blame the manufacturer of the >cigarette. Ditto you other example and coffee. Cigarettes are well enough known to have "red-hot" temperatures, which are generally near/over 1,000 degrees F, probably more like closer to 1500 degrees F. I have yet to hear any proposal that cigarettes have their burning action taking place with temperatures not exceeding 1,000 degrees F! Unlike the case for coffee, where past threads have bantered about drinking temperatures in the 130's to 160's degrees F as opposed to McD's serving theirs at a temperature in the 180's or 190's degrees F! Coffee does not normally cause 3rd degree burns from a spill! - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > Hardly a punishment. Especially for people like the woman I mentioned > above. Heck, she doesn't pay her lawyer if she loses, she's got nothing > better to do with her time. If you believe, as you obviously do, that she's attempting to defraud using the public courts, why don't you turn her in for investigation? Notify your local District Attorney or Grand Jury. Or at least name her and her locale here so that someone with similar views to your own can do it? >> Hardly a punishment. Especially for people like the woman I mentioned >> above. Heck, she doesn't pay her lawyer if she loses, she's got nothing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and her locale here so that someone with similar views to your own can >do it? If her lawyers think that she has a valid enough claim to take it on a contingency basis, and they still lose the case, she doesn't owe them anything. > >> Hardly a punishment. Especially for people like the woman I mentioned > >> above. Heck, she doesn't pay her lawyer if she loses, she's got nothing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > contingency basis, and they still lose the case, she doesn't owe them > anything. Agreed, and IMHO, that's a good thing. Lawyers are well-protected from punishment for abuse of their profession, but that doesn't shield plaintiffs (or defendants) from penalty if there is a pattern of abuse or fraud. bizby40 was claiming to know a plaintiff who was actually making a living from filing numerous frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps attorneys do that. Perhaps. But a plaintiff? Once in the mid-eighties, I watched a whole crate of summonses come in to be served. They were all from one guy who was intent on suing the Government of California, from the Governor on down. He went to considerable trouble and expense to learn how to compose and file documents correctly. He paid for all legal expenses (filing fees, copying fees and on and on) himself. I read one of the summonses, which were all the same. He was, um, a genuine eccentric to say the least. And the only people who made money from his suit were printers and process servers. Needless to say, the suit was dismissed before he could subpoena the Governor. The worst thing I can say about it is how many trees died for his action? > bizby40 was claiming to know a plaintiff who was actually making a > living from filing numerous frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps attorneys do > that. Perhaps. > > But a plaintiff? Well, trying to make a living at it at least. At the time I met her, she came to work in a day care center that I worked at. She flat out stated that the only reason she took the job was because it made her look better in court to have one. While waiting for the payout from this case, she and her roommate were living mainly on the money that her roommate had won in another case. As for whether or not the lawsuits are frivolous. Well, I suppose if she wins them, then they aren't. But there are some people who keep their eyes open for any reason to sue. And there are many companies who will generally settle cases rather than take them to court. I don't know that she ever actually committed fraud or any other crime. She was just opportunistic. But people like that are only looking to see what they can get -- they don't care about the long term implications for others. Our subdivision was unable to put in a neighborhood playground because insurance rates for playgrounds have skyrocketed in the past few years. > there are some people who keep their eyes open for any reason to sue. Can't really argue with you about that. All I can add is that in my experience, those people are almost always called "lawyers" :-) I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in the industry for some years and I've gotta say, I did meet a lot of avaricious complainants and respondents (to say nothing of their legal representatives). But by and large, most of the _clients_ I met on both sides of various actions were well-intended and convinced of the rectitude, if not the certain righteousness, of their cause. Even the guy who sued California. Among many other lessons, that work taught me how unqualified I was, personally, to judge whether or not any given case was worthy of judicial consideration. I ended that phase of my worklife peacefully content that I don't have to decide such things; I may be poor, but my stomach lining is intact. > > Please watch your quoting and attributions, as you did not quote anything > > that I said. My comments are in line. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You don't know that. It's just a trite and tired thing to say anytime > someone gets ahead by acting in an innapropriate manner. Actually, I do know that. My firm does case preps for insurance companies, and I get the plaintiffs entire litigation history. You should see what a decent attorney can do with a professional plaintiff. I have, and it is NOT pretty. They often switch attorneys and the new guy just sits there and sweats. > >> Seems like there could be some "reasonable person" test. Clearly, a > >> reasonable person would know that McDonald's food is fattening. A [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So then, *everybody* should be served lukewarm coffee Who said lukewarm? I said, appropriate temperature in line with the industry standard. McDonalds was way over that standard. because a few people > are too stupid to realize that dumping it in their lap isn't a good idea? A few? Several hundred by all accounts, and many were scaled due to no action of theirs, except going to McDonalds because of the cute play areas and the marketing. > > If it doesn't pass the reasonable person test, then > >> the suit should not be brought, and perhaps the plaintiff should face [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hardly a punishment. Not every action deserves a punishment. Especially for people like the woman I mentioned > above. Heck, she doesn't pay her lawyer if she loses, she's got nothing > better to do with her time. However, her lawyer loses and eventually some wise up. I know of one who now contacts my firm for litigation history of any questionable plaintiff. I have saved him thousands, and he is greatful (pays my bill in 2 weeks or less!!!!!). So what if she's costing the other party > thousands of dollars to defend against her even if they win? What about the > small businesses that can't afford fleets of attorneys and just swallow huge > settlements? Small businesses have insurance and their carriers provide for legal representation. Carriers are getting far more aggressive in investigating plaintiffs backgounds these days. Yes, I am VERY busy. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be comparable to the effect on the body of a steady, uninterrupted diet > of Big Macs. Lawsuits have been the only means Joe Average has of taking on the well financed and politically protected in the US. >I apologize for leading the way on getting this topic off topic...Let >me first say that I did not say... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >sell us on their unhealthy products. >We need to be responsible for our kids...that is the bottom line! How do they sell it to you if you decline to buy it? Do they send a midget to hold you at gunpoint while his accomplice loads up your shopping cart? Some people are terrified by clowns. All Ronald McDonald has to do is look at them and they are putty in his hands. In news:ig3jv054rkslk1f855biaoogjgloloe023@4ax.com, Bob Ward <bobward@verizon.net> stated | How do they sell it to you if you decline to buy it? Do they send a | midget to hold you at gunpoint while his accomplice loads up your | shopping cart? > I apologize for leading the way on getting this topic off topic...Let > me first say that I did not say... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > what about Snickers Bars and Pepsi and all those other companies that > sell us on their unhealthy products. They may *want* to sell us, but we have no obligation to buy. > We need to be responsible for our kids...that is the bottom line! I would not limit it to the "bottom". > > >> This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was > > >> too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Note that the jury found the plaintiff in this case 20% responsible and > reduced the award. After that, the judge reduced it further. McDonalds didn't scald anybody, the consumer spilled it on themselves. >> > >> This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee >was [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> reduced the award. After that, the judge reduced it further. >McDonalds didn't scald anybody, the consumer spilled it on themselves. Who superheated the coffee and handed it to the customer? > Who superheated the coffee and handed it to the customer? They have to heat it to above scalding to cover up the fact that it's stale coffee that tastes like cr*p. > > Who superheated the coffee and handed it to the customer? > > They have to heat it to above scalding to cover up the fact that it's > stale coffee that tastes like cr*p. Probably why I don't like McD's coffee. I always let my coffee cool down to the point that other's might throw it away before I drink it. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > > Who superheated the coffee and handed it to the customer? > > They have to heat it to above scalding to cover up the fact that it's > stale coffee that tastes like cr*p. A point that I made. They use cheaper coffee since they brewed it so hot that your taste buds could not tell that is was cheap coffee. > > > >> This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee > was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and > > reduced the award. After that, the judge reduced it further. > McDonalds didn't scald anybody, the consumer spilled it on themselves. McDonald's created the dangerous instrumentality, i.e. scalding hot coffee, thus, they are responsible for any damage that it may cause. Many of the scalding cases were that of children who were accidentally scalded when coffee was accidentally splashed on them. And, if you bothered to read the URLs I posted, you would have seen a case where there was a person who was scalded when the employee accidentally dumped scalding hot coffee on her. If the coffee was not so hot, there would have been no injury. Thus, it is clearly the temperature of the coffee, which is McDonald's sole responsibility, that causes the injury. McDonalds also had a dismal track record in worker's compensation claims based on accidentally scalded employees. Their overall operation behind the counter actually encouraged such injuries. > McDonald's created the dangerous instrumentality, i.e. scalding hot > coffee, > thus, they are responsible for any damage that it may cause. Many of the > scalding cases were that of children who were accidentally scalded when > coffee was accidentally splashed on them. Merely creating a "dangerous instrumentality" does not mean that you are responsible for injuries caused. I've burned myself on my stove, or on things that have been in my oven. I don't think the manufacturer of the stove is responsible for this. Stoves are expected to be hot. People are expected to take extra care around them. I have also burned myself on food I've good at home. I got a good mouth burn just last night from some hot soup. What if I'd served that soup to a friend, and the friend burned his mouth? Or dumped it in his lap? Should he sue me? We expect things like soup and coffee to be hot. You take extra care with these foods. You don't sue someone because you chose to open a hot coffee in a moving car. > > McDonald's created the dangerous instrumentality, i.e. scalding hot > > coffee, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > stove is responsible for this. Stoves are expected to be hot. People are > expected to take extra care around them. Bad analogy. No reasonable person expects the temperature of a cup of coffee to be so scalding hot that it would cause such deep tissue injuries. > I have also burned myself on food I've good at home. I got a good mouth > burn just last night from some hot soup. What if I'd served that soup to a > friend, and the friend burned his mouth? Or dumped it in his lap? Should > he > sue me? Do you have a track record like McDonalds? > We expect things like soup and coffee to be hot. You take extra care with > these foods. You don't sue someone because you chose to open a hot > coffee in a moving car. One should be able to reasonably expect that the coffee not be so hot as to scald and burn skin. > Bad analogy. No reasonable person expects the temperature of a cup of > coffee > to be so scalding hot that it would cause such deep tissue injuries. Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd expect. Remember, this woman was both elderly and sitting in a car. Both of these things would have contributed to her being unable to jump up and get that hot coffee away from her skin. So it just sat there continuing to burn her for who knows how long? That is quite unfortunate for her, but hardly something that McDonald's had control over. Food is, or can be hot. That's a fact of life. The elderly tend to be less nimble and more prone to dropping things than their younger counterparts, also a fact of life. Therefore, a reasonable elderly person might have realized that attempting the nimble operation of opening their coffee and adding milk to it while seated in a car was an unwise action to take. I do think this case is less cut and dry than the McDonald's obesity case though. In fact, I've argued on the other side as well. >> I have also burned myself on food I've good at home. I got a good mouth >> burn just last night from some hot soup. What if I'd served that soup to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do you have a track record like McDonalds? No, but then they've served "billions and billions" and I've served maybe "dozen". I'm willing to bet they didn't injure their first dozen customers either. >> We expect things like soup and coffee to be hot. You take extra care >> with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to > scald and burn skin. On the contrary, I do expect that coffee or soup straight from the pot would be hot enough to burn me. >Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd expect. Remember, this woman was both >elderly and sitting in a car. Both of these things would have contributed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >coffee and adding milk to it while seated in a car was an unwise action to >take. McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years (I'm going to guess that even a young person would be unable to avoid 3rd degree burns that occur in 2-7 seconds from hot liquid spilled on them). Nan >> Bad analogy. No reasonable person expects the temperature >> of a cup of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > but hardly > something that McDonald's had control over. EXACTLY! >> Do you have a track record like McDonalds? See my other post. The track record is not all that bad. > On the contrary, I do expect that coffee or soup straight > from the > pot would be hot enough to burn me. Me too. Signature00doc > Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd expect. Remember, this woman was both > elderly and sitting in a car. Both of these things would have contributed > to her being unable to jump up and get that hot coffee away from her skin. > So it just sat there continuing to burn her for who knows how long? That is > quite unfortunate for her, but hardly something that McDonald's had control > over. But also a problem they knew was happening much too frequently with their beverage and a solution which they could easily accomodate and chose not. Thus the justification for the punitive damages. > Food is, or can be hot. Depends on how it is prepared, don't you think? > > Bad analogy. No reasonable person expects the temperature of a cup of > > coffee > > to be so scalding hot that it would cause such deep tissue injuries. > > Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd expect. That is why the test is that of a "reasonable person". Individuality is irrelevant. Remember, this woman was both > elderly and sitting in a car. Which, McDonalds is aware of when they sell coffee since they have drive throughs. This puts a further onus on them. Both of these things would have contributed > to her being unable to jump up and get that hot coffee away from her skin. > So it just sat there continuing to burn her for who knows how long? Just a few seconds was enough. That is > quite unfortunate for her, but hardly something that McDonald's had control > over. Wrong. McDonalds set the temperature of the dangerous instrumentality. They had full control. Food is, or can be hot. That's a fact of life. The elderly tend to > be less nimble and more prone to dropping things than their younger > counterparts, also a fact of life. And elderly people are customers, etc. This is an irrelevant point. Therefore, a reasonable elderly person > might have realized that attempting the nimble operation of opening their > coffee and adding milk to it while seated in a car was an unwise action to > take. Sure. > I do think this case is less cut and dry than the McDonald's obesity case > though. In fact, I've argued on the other side as well. > >> I have also burned myself on food I've good at home. I got a good mouth > >> burn just last night from some hot soup. What if I'd served that soup to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "dozen". I'm willing to bet they didn't injure their first dozen customers > either. Forget the billions, the 700 previous cases put them on notice that their coffee was dangerously hot. > >> We expect things like soup and coffee to be hot. You take extra care > >> with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > On the contrary, I do expect that coffee or soup straight from the pot would > be hot enough to burn me. See comment above about reasonable person test. > > McDonald's created the dangerous instrumentality, i.e. scalding hot > > coffee, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > these foods. You don't sue someone because you chose to open a hot > coffee in a moving car. You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter than you can get it at home? It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a special technology to get it extremely hot, and had been warned that it was too hot. So, in fact, this coffee WAS hotter than you expect it to be. And the car wasn't moving when the coffee spilled. She was trying to get the lid off to pour in the cream and sugar, in a car without a flat surface to use. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter than you can get >it at home? It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >get the lid off to pour in the cream and sugar, in a car without a flat >surface to use. Yep. http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm Nan > You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter than you can get > it at home? It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a > special technology to get it extremely hot, and had been warned that it > was too hot. > > So, in fact, this coffee WAS hotter than you expect it to be. Okay, granted. > And the car wasn't moving when the coffee spilled. She was trying to > get the lid off to pour in the cream and sugar, in a car without a flat > surface to use. So, then you acknowledge that at least part of the blame was hers? That it was poor judgement to attempt this operation where she was? >> You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter than you can get >> it at home? It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >So, then you acknowledge that at least part of the blame was hers? That it >was poor judgement to attempt this operation where she was? The judge determined she was 20% responsible, and adjusted the award accordingly. > So, then you acknowledge that at least part of the blame was hers? That it > was poor judgement to attempt this operation where she was? Sure -- and the court assigned partial blame to her, as well. Twenty percent, as I recall. However, that does not make McD's blameless. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > > You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter than you can get > > it at home? It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So, then you acknowledge that at least part of the blame was hers? That it > was poor judgement to attempt this operation where she was? No, it was not. Follow: 1) McDonald's does not prepare coffee to order, i.e., they allow you to put in your own sugar, milk, etc. 2) They sell coffee in this way through their drive throughs. Thus, they can reasonably foresee a person being in a car and opening the coffee container. It is their responsibility. > You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter > than you can > get it at home? HUH? I can heat it to boiling at home. > It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a > special technology to get it extremely hot, and had been > warned that > it was too hot. Since when is 180 degrees above the boiling point of water? Get a grip!! If it was dispensed while above the boiling piont of water (presumably under pressure) it would explode in the face of anyone who tried to mix it or otherwise disturb it. This exact thing sometimes happens when people microwave liquids. > So, in fact, this coffee WAS hotter than you expect it to > be. First of all - when examined tha is a rediculous argument. It suggests that she expected to spill the coffee and not get burned. That is just not credible. Secondly of all - the coffee was hotter than other fast food restaurants in the area but not outside the manufacturers specs for the machine and not hotter than the "industry standard" for the food service industry in general. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DianaGendler.shtml (93C = about 199F) "Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. 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." " http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm > And the car wasn't moving when the coffee spilled. She > was trying to > get the lid off to pour in the cream and sugar, in a car > without a > flat surface to use. What do you propose McD's should have done about that? Signature00doc >Secondly of all - the coffee was hotter than other fast food >restaurants in the area but not outside the manufacturers >specs for the machine and not hotter than the "industry >standard" for the food service industry in general. As someone else pointed out, the manufacturer's standards are the standard for *making* coffee, but not the temperature at which it should be *served.* -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:29:36 -0500, "00doc" > <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > temperature > at which it should be *served.* But there is no standard waiting or cool down period. It is often, indeed preferably, served immediately after being made. Signature00doc > You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter than you can get > it at home? It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a > special technology to get it extremely hot, and had been warned that it > was too hot. Come on now. I have been in many McDonalds, and none of them have equipment to make coffee ". . . ABOVE the boiling point of water. . . . " If you actually believe that, you are a true nut case. You can't put coffee that is ". . . ABOVE the boiling point of water . . . " in a styrofoam cup. If you could it would instantly boil over. > So, in fact, this coffee WAS hotter than you expect it to be. How can any restaurant know what is " . . . hotter than you expect it to be. . . " ??? That is a subjective question that no one can answer. My mother in law thinks 100 degrees in too hot, I think the hotter it is the better. You can't satisfy everyone and that certainly should not be the job of our judges, juries and courts. If McD spilled it on her, they should be liable, otherwise, I say say this was rediculous. > And the car wasn't moving when the coffee spilled. She was trying to > get the lid off to pour in the cream and sugar, in a car without a flat > surface to use. Therefore you obviously think therefore since there is no flat surface to use for potential dangerous acts like adding cream and sugar to coffee in cars, that drive- through-services should be terminated a fast food outlets. Otherwise hot burgers could slip out of a bun or fries from a cup and hurt someone and the mean old corporation would be called a fault. - - - In a word - - REDICULOUS!!! Let people assume some level of responsibility for their own actions. > > You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter than you can get > > it at home? It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If > you could it would instantly boil over. I was moderately inaccurate: however, they do MAKE it under pressure to get it extremely hot. It was being served well above the temperature that coffee can be made with home equipment, or in most restaurants. It was hotter than coffee is usually served -- that much is well documented. > > So, in fact, this coffee WAS hotter than you expect it to be. > drive- > through-services should be terminated a fast food outlets. Otherwise hot > burgers could slip out of a bun or fries from a cup and hurt someone and the > mean old corporation would be called a fault. - - - In a word - - > REDICULOUS!!! > Let people assume some level of responsibility for their own actions. The fact that there had been many complaints, and many other injuries makes a difference. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > I was moderately inaccurate: however, they do MAKE it > under pressure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > served -- that > much is well documented. Then document it. When I say this I mean by some source independant of the litigation. The claims of the plaintiff and hired guns mean nothing. Find an independant source that says coffee should be made or served at less than 180 degrees F. I mean - this is the crux of the issue. We know they served it at about 185 degrees F. There is no argument here. If this was an unexpected high temp then clearly McD'd was aberring from what could have been reasonably assumed and is at least partially responsible. If it was a normal temp for coffee then clearly it wasn't. From what I am reading everyone here would agree with this. The thing is that the only links that have been posted indicate that 180+ is not abnormal. It seems to me that the onus is on those who wish to say otherwise to back up their opinions. The rest of the bits about how fast it can burn etc etc are really irrelevant if she should have expected it. The one other good point is the one that Mark raised involves the fact that it was a drive through and they were not adding the sugar and milk (although no REAL coffee drinker ads them ;-) ). For this to really be an issue we have to go back to the reasonable person paradigm and establish that McD's paper cups are more prone to spilling than should be expected. Good luck with that. > The fact that there had been many complaints, and many > other injuries > makes a difference. No, it really doesn't. Sometimes it does. If McD's was arguing that the burn was unforeseeable it would. But no one is saying it was unforeseeable. Quite the opposite - we are saying that it was eminently foreseeable to any reasonable person and so there was no duty to warn or take any other actions. Signature00doc >When I say this I mean by some source independant of the >litigation. The claims of the plaintiff and hired guns mean >nothing. Find an independant source that says coffee should >be made or served at less than 180 degrees F. Already posted. Richard Wright's book does an analysis of the case and points out that coffee at home is not served this hot and that coffee while it should be held at 185 is mostly at 150 to 170 when it is served in a restaurant because it is poured into an open cup. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:27:14 -0500, "00doc" > <00doc@commoncast.net> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is > poured into an open cup. OK - one book that I would have a hard time verifying. It also is not independant of the case. At least I give you credit for looking for some factual information - I knew if anyone did it would be you. But one journalist's opinion, which may or may not be based on the trial testimony, really isn't a comment on commonly accepted restaurant practice, now is it? Can't anyone come up with an industry website that says the proper way to serve coffee is to brew it at 200 degrees or so and then serve it at a lower temp? Mind you, the Internet is a huge place with just about every opinion known to man expressed on it. When posting these challenges I fully expected someone to come up with something and to have to admit there is at least some doubt. But for some reason it just does not seem to be happening. Signature00doc > I mean - this is the crux of the issue. We know they served > it at about 185 degrees F. There is no argument here. If [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coffee then clearly it wasn't. From what I am reading > everyone here would agree with this. The court seemed to agree that serving coffee this hot was NOT normal. I know of no other place that has had problems with their coffee scalding people. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >> I mean - this is the crux of the issue. We know they served >> it at about 185 degrees F. There is no argument here. If [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I know of no other place that has had problems with their coffee >scalding people. Well, for coffee to taste at its peak it needs to be HOT. The bitch knew it was hot and should never had put in near her crotch. It was HER fault but for being stupid she got paid big money. > >> I mean - this is the crux of the issue. We know they served > >> it at about 185 degrees F. There is no argument here. If [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > knew it was hot and should never had put in near her crotch. It was > HER fault but for being stupid she got paid big money. Steadying a cup between your knees while you take the lid off is not "stupid". And there is NO evidence that she's anything but a nice old lady. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >> >> I mean - this is the crux of the issue. We know they served >> >> it at about 185 degrees F. There is no argument here. If [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >And there is NO evidence that she's anything but a nice old lady. Actually, some of us know exactly who she is. How? Because she lives in Albuquerque where the woman did the deed. Everything happened in that city and many of us who live or used to live in the area know her. Would you like to try again? >> I mean - this is the crux of the issue. We know they >> served [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The court seemed to agree that serving coffee this hot was > NOT normal. Yeah - those same jurors also felt that a multi-million dollar settlement was reasonable. Apparently they were not being reasonable there so it is not a foregone conclusion that they were reasonable elsewhere. Juries are famous for ignoring or misunderstanding the facts and just throwing money at the injured. > I know of no other place that has had problems with their > coffee > scalding people. Before this case did you know of any? Signature00doc >>> I mean - this is the crux of the issue. We know they >>> served [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >ignoring or misunderstanding the facts and just throwing >money at the injured. Most of the award was punitive damages. Punitive damages have to be high enough to punish the defendant. I propose that the portion of the damage award that is punitive go to some branch/level of government or some bunch of charities rather than to the defendant, although with some means to compensate the lawyer causing any justifiable punitive damage award. >> I know of no other place that has had problems with their >> coffee scalding people. Appears to me the usual reason is from the coffee being something significantly cooler than 185 degrees F when the people drank it! >Before this case did you know of any? Before this Stella case, McD's drew about 600 complaints from actual burns from their excessively hot coffee! - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > Before this Stella case, McD's drew about 600 complaints from actual > burns from their excessively hot coffee! > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) 600? A day? A Month? Per Store? For a company that size they get more complaints about the bathroom being dirty, overly salty fries or a cold burger. Hopefully not Cold burgers and salty fries served in the dirty bathroom. Tori SignatureBonnie 3/20/02 Xavier 10/27/04 >> Before this Stella case, McD's drew about 600 complaints from actual >> burns from their excessively hot coffee! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >burger. Hopefully not Cold burgers and salty fries served in the dirty >bathroom. I was takling about coffee burns severe enough to result in medical bills. 600 of those in the few years prior to the famous lawsuit means they were pushing the limits with high coffee temperature and coffeecup lids that were difficult to open until one uses force that jerks the coffeecup. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) >>> Before this Stella case, McD's drew about 600 complaints from actual >>> burns from their excessively hot coffee! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) I am saying 600 in a few years spread out over the entire US is not that big of a number. Now if it was 600 in a month at 1 Mc Donalds that is a big deal. Or even 600 in a few years at 1 Mc Donalds.. Tori SignatureBonnie 3/20/02 Xavier 10/27/04 >>>> Before this Stella case, McD's drew about 600 complaints from actual >>>> burns from their excessively hot coffee! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >of a number. Now if it was 600 in a month at 1 Mc Donalds that is a big >deal. Or even 600 in a few years at 1 Mc Donalds.. You're right in the Grand Scheme Of Things, it's not a large number. However, it is relevant to the case, as it set the attitude of McDs to ignore the issue of too hot coffee, which is why they lost the case. Nan > > Before this Stella case, McD's drew about 600 complaints from actual > > burns from their excessively hot coffee! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tori None of which resulted in hospitalization. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >>Before this case did you know of any? > > Before this Stella case, McD's drew about 600 complaints from actual >burns from their excessively hot coffee! Actually that was apparently 700 cases. And some of those involved third degree burns as well. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >>Before this case did you know of any? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually that was apparently 700 cases. And some of those involved > third degree burns as well. Again, 700 cases out of BILLIONS served! A "statiscally insignificant" number as the McD's laywers pointed out, and the STUPID jurors took this to mean that the burns didn't matter! Doan >> >>Before this case did you know of any? >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > number as the McD's laywers pointed out, and the STUPID jurors took > this to mean that the burns didn't matter! This is what I was trying to say.. Maybe people think that if 1 person is hurt a large chain store across the US should change its practices to avoid #2. I see people with sensative skin getting scalded. Right after this case there was one about a guy who broke his foot on or with a Big Mac.. Tori SignatureBonnie 3/20/02 Xavier 10/27/04 "00doc" <00doc@commoncast.net> wrote in message ||| I was moderately inaccurate: however, they do MAKE it ||| under pressure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] ||| served -- that ||| much is well documented. It makes no difference. The utter, sheer stupidity , not to mention complete lack of judgement of the idiot who put a cup of piping hot coffee between her legs while driving her car cancels out MacDonald's poor judgement in serving it hot. It's called p-e-r-s-o-n-a-l r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y. This woman should be banned from driving and should never again be allowed around hot liquids or sharp objects. She's way too stupid. -- Peter >"00doc" <00doc@commoncast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >This woman should be banned from driving and should never again be allowed >around hot liquids or sharp objects. She's way too stupid. As stupid as you, who got none of the facts correct? I didn't think so. >>"00doc" <00doc@commoncast.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > As stupid as you, who got none of the facts correct? I didn't think > so. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Read for yourself Bunky http://www.freewebs.com/warpig-cgs-/websalbum.htm >>>"00doc" <00doc@commoncast.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> >http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Read for yourself Like I said - Other than the fact that coffee was involved, he got none of the facts right. She wasn't driving - the car wasn't moving. Her grandson had stopped the car so she could add cream and sugar to the coffee. http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785 http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm Read one for yourself and make an informed decision SignatureBunky http://www.freewebs.com/warpig-cgs-/websalbum.htm > It makes no difference. The utter, sheer stupidity , not to mention > complete lack of judgement of the idiot who put a cup of piping hot coffee > between her legs while driving her car cancels out MacDonald's poor > judgement in serving it hot. It's called > p-e-r-s-o-n-a-l r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y. It makes a difference to get the story right. It's called i-g-n-o-r-a-n-c-e. > "00doc" <00doc@commoncast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > Peter At least please get your facts straight. A - She wasn't the driver, she was a passenger. B - The car was NOT moving when the coffee spilled. The driver had pulled over so it would NOT be moving while she put her cream and sugar in the cup. C - As I understand it, she was steadying it between her knees; its not like she was holding it between her thighs. For the record, I've done similar things while sitting in the passenger seat in a stopped car. I'm sure many people have. I've even spilled It's easy to make her look totally incompetent if you are willing to ignore the facts. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >It makes no difference. The utter, sheer stupidity , not to mention >complete lack of judgement of the idiot who put a cup of piping hot coffee >between her legs while driving her car cancels out MacDonald's poor >judgement in serving it hot. It's called >p-e-r-s-o-n-a-l r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y. She was NOT driving. She was in the passenger seat and the car was parked, not moving. There was no flat surface where she could put the cup while opening the lid. You can't even get the facts straight. >This woman should be banned from driving and should >never again be allowed around hot liquids or sharp objects. >She's way too stupid. I think you are pretty stupid not to see that there was a joint responsibility here. You absolve the corporation of *all* responsibility despite the fact that they had already had 700 claims settled and knew about the problem. How stupid were McD's executives not to turn the temperature down by a few degrees to prevent the seriousness of such injuries? It seems to me they were stupid themselves. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >It makes no difference. The utter, sheer stupidity , not to mention > >complete lack of judgement of the idiot who put a cup of piping hot coffee [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > -- > Dorothy And you are STUPID for not knowing that hot coffee is dangerous! Thanks to cases like this, the people are much safer now because the coffe cups now labeled with "This coffee is hot, STUPID!" :-) Doan >And you are STUPID for not knowing that hot coffee is dangerous! >Thanks to cases like this, the people are much safer now because >the coffe cups now labeled with "This coffee is hot, STUPID!" :-) I don't like or drink coffee, but I do drink hot tea. I have spilled hot tea without having third degree burns. The problem is not that the coffee was hot, but that it was *too* hot according to other restaurants and according to how you would drink it from a coffee maker at your own home. You cannot get coffee makers at home that hold coffee at 185 degrees. First-degree burns affect only the outer skin layer. The skin area appears dry, red, and mildly swollen. A first- degree burn is painful and sensitive to touch. Mild sunburn and brief contact with a heat source such as a hot iron are examples of first-degree burns. First-degree burns should feel better within a day or two. They should heal in about a week if there are no complications. Second-degree burns affect the skin's lower layers and the outer skin. They are painful, swollen, and show redness and blisters. The skin also develops a weepy, watery surface. Examples of second-degree burns are severe sunburn, burns caused by hot liquids, and a gasoline flash. Third-degree burns affect the outer and deeper skin layers and any underlying tissue and organs. They appear black- and-white and charred. The skin swells, and underlying tissue is often exposed. Third-degree burns may have less pain than first-degree or second-degree burns. There can also be pain when nerve endings are destroyed. Pain may be felt around the margin of the affected area. Third-degree burns usually result from electric shocks, burning clothes, severe gasoline fires, etc, and require emergency treatment People are more likely to suffer third-degree burns from contact with corrosive chemicals, flames, electricity, or extremely hot objects; immersion of the body in extremely hot water, or clothing that catches fire. No one expects to get third degree burns from hot coffee. Second degree burns might be expected, but most of the time, you would only get first degree burns. In the case of this woman, because of her positioning and not being able to get away from the heat immediately, if the coffee had been at drinking temperature or even a bit hotter, but not 185 degrees, the damage she suffered would have been reasonably expected if she spilled the drink, but NOT the damage that she did suffer. During discovery, McDonalds 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 Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. The jury in that case heard sworn testimony from McDonald's own safety consultant that asserted that the complaints of 700 people being burned was "basically trivial". McDonalds 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. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager 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 a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds 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 Liebecks spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn. McDonalds 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. McDonalds 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. ****************** Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit. >Doan -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >And you are STUPID for not knowing that hot coffee is dangerous! > >Thanks to cases like this, the people are much safer now because > >the coffe cups now labeled with "This coffee is hot, STUPID!" :-) > > > I don't like or drink coffee, but I do drink hot tea. I have spilled > hot tea without having third degree burns. And I, like every other reasonable person, did everything I can to AVOID spilling coffee on myself! > The problem is not that the coffee was hot, but that it was *too* hot > according to other restaurants and according to how you would > drink it from a coffee maker at your own home. You cannot get > coffee makers at home that hold coffee at 185 degrees. Irrelevant! The problem is spilling hot coffee over youself. If you don't spill coffee on yourself, you don't get burn! [snipped] > No one expects to get third degree burns from hot coffee. > Second degree burns might be expected, but most of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have been reasonably expected if she spilled the drink, > but NOT the damage that she did suffer. LOL! So she EXPECTED to get burn??? > During discovery, McDonalds produced documents > showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > consultant that asserted that the complaints of 700 > people being burned was "basically trivial". 700 out of how many? Billions served? :-) > McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a > consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and > coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. Irrelevant! I boiled water to make coffee at home. Water boils at 212 degrees! [snipped] > McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot > and that its customers want it that way. The company [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > since the location of the writing would not warn customers > of the hazard. LOL! And this is stupid? Why? > ****************** > > Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of > coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to > 158 degrees Fahrenheit. LOL! The coffe I get at my local McDees is still very hot! Do you have a policy statement from McDonald to say that they have lowered the temperature of their coffee? Doan >> I don't like or drink coffee, but I do drink hot tea. I have spilled >> hot tea without having third degree burns. >> >And I, like every other reasonable person, did everything I can to >AVOID spilling coffee on myself! So do most people, but that doesn't absolve mcDs of some part of the responsibility. The judge decided that they were 80% at fault. You might put the percentage at less, but I don't see how you can say they have *NO* fault at all. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >> I don't like or drink coffee, but I do drink hot tea. I have spilled > >> hot tea without having third degree burns. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So do most people, but that doesn't absolve mcDs of some part > of the responsibility. What responsibility? To make sure that their coffee won't burn STUPID people who put a HOT coffe between their legs? > The judge decided that they were 80% at fault. You might put the > percentage at less, but I don't see how you can say they have *NO* > fault at all. Maybe because I, like other reasonable people, believe in personal responsibility! Last night, I baked a frozen pizza and happenned to read the warning "Do not eat this raw". I chuckled and said to myself "Are people this STUPID?"" :-) Doan >> >> I don't like or drink coffee, but I do drink hot tea. I have spilled >> >> hot tea without having third degree burns. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >What responsibility? To make sure that their coffee won't burn >STUPID people who put a HOT coffe between their legs? What should the usual consequence be of putting a cup of coffee between one's legs? Should burns severe enough to require skin grafts be a result of a spill of coffee at a temperature that it should normally be at after it is poured into the cup? And why did McD's need to use coffeecup lids so hard to open that people had to put the cup between their legs to open them? Yes, that was a complaint in the lawsuit! - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > >> >> I don't like or drink coffee, but I do drink hot tea. I have spilled > >> >> hot tea without having third degree burns. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of a spill of coffee at a temperature that it should normally be at after > it is poured into the cup? Irrelevant! Are you so STUPID so as not to know that IT IS HOT??? > And why did McD's need to use coffeecup lids so hard to open that people > had to put the cup between their legs to open them? Yes, that was a > complaint in the lawsuit! LOL! There was no cup holder in the car??? Doan > LOL! There was no cup holder in the car??? > > Doan Lots of cars don't have cup holders. Lots of cup holders are not situated in such a way that they would have been helpful. What's your point? > > LOL! There was no cup holder in the car??? > > > > Doan > > Lots of cars don't have cup holders. Lots of cup holders are not situated > in such a way that they would have been helpful. What's your point? Then sue Detroits! The point is for you to use common-sense. Don't put the HOT coffee between your legs, STUPID! Doan >Then sue Detroits! The point is for you to use common-sense. Don't put >the HOT coffee between your legs, STUPID! > >Doan Thanks for reminding why you need to go back in my sinbin. Nan > >Then sue Detroits! The point is for you to use common-sense. Don't put > >the HOT coffee between your legs, STUPID! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nan You are welcome! :-) Doan > > >> >> I don't like or drink coffee, but I do drink hot tea. I have spilled > > >> >> hot tea without having third degree burns. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Doan We have five cars. Two of them have cup holders, and in one of those they are so flimsy that I can't use them to put anything hot. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > > > >> >> I don't like or drink coffee, but I do drink hot tea. I have spilled > > > >> >> hot tea without having third degree burns. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > they are so flimsy that I can't use them to put anything hot. > -- Then sue the car manufacturers! :-) Doan > > > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.33.0501302001360.15622-100000@skat.usc.edu>, > > > > Doan [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Doan ???? for what? SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >???? for what? For failing to recognize that people will need someone to set a cup of coffee, silly <G> You can't argue with Doan Nan > >???? for what? > > For failing to recognize that people will need someone to set a cup of > coffee, silly <G> Exactly! If you don't, they will put it between their legs! :-) > You can't argue with Doan Not if you have the logic! :-) Doan >> > > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.33.0501302001360.15622-100000@skat.usc.edu>, >> > > > Doan [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >???? for what? For not being responsible for their own actions, which after all is all that the suit was about in the first place. > >> > > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.33.0501302001360.15622-100000@skat.usc.edu>, > >> > > > Doan [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > For not being responsible for their own actions, which after all is > all that the suit was about in the first place. Ah! How refreshing it is to have common sense! Doan >> >???? for what? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Doan Too bad it's a vicarious experence on your part. > >> >???? for what? > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Too bad it's a vicarious experence on your part. And it's too bad that you have not experience it yourself! :-) Doan >For not being responsible for their own actions, which after all is >all that the suit was about in the first place. No... not having a cup holder in a car is not the same as serving coffee at a dangerous temperature to people in a car. (or not taking due care with hot beverages when serving someone at a table in a restaurant). -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >For not being responsible for their own actions, which after all is > >all that the suit was about in the first place. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (or not taking due care with hot beverages when serving > someone at a table in a restaurant). Did the old lady take due care with the hot beverage? Is she so STUPID as not to know that the coffee is HOT??? Doan >>> > > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.33.0501302001360.15622-100000@skat.usc.edu>, >>> > > > Doan [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >For not being responsible for their own actions, which after all is >all that the suit was about in the first place. So you don't think that McDonalds should be held responsible for their actions? >>>> > > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.33.0501302001360.15622-100000@skat.usc.edu>, >>>> > > > Doan [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >So you don't think that McDonalds should be held responsible for their >actions? I don't think they did a thing wrong. I think she was stupid for putting it between her legs and then spilling it. I don't ever go to Micky Ds and can't imagine why anyone would but it was her fault and she should learn to live with her decisions. > > > > > In article <Pine.GSO.4.33.0501302001360.15622-100000@skat.usc.edu>, > > > > > Doan [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > ???? for what? > -- For not saving STUPID people from their STUPIDITY! :-) Doan >LOL! There was no cup holder in the car??? I suspect that depends on how old the car was. The events happened in 1992. I never had cup holders in my cars in the 70s and 80s. I don't know when they became *standard* in cars. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits > >LOL! There was no cup holder in the car??? > > I suspect that depends on how old the car was. The events > happened in 1992. I never had cup holders in my cars in > the 70s and 80s. I don't know when they became *standard* > in cars. There is also the floor-mat where you can place the coffe cup between your shoes - common sense! Doan > There is also the floor-mat where you can place the coffe cup between > your shoes - common sense! > > Doan Yeah. I'm trying to picture myself bent over trying to add sugar and milk to coffee held between my feet -- in a car with the dashboard in my way. Now I'm trying to picture a 79 year old lady doing it. Uh, right. Not likely. Perhaps you could at least suggest something more reasonable? Like that she could have waited until she got wherever she was going? Or that they could have gone inside? Or that the likely less shaky grandson could have opened the cup for her? > > There is also the floor-mat where you can place the coffe cup between > > your shoes - common sense! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have gone inside? Or that the likely less shaky grandson could have opened > the cup for her? Sure! Common sense! I suggested the cup-holder. Perhaps you missed it. Doan > > >LOL! There was no cup holder in the car??? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Doan I'm trying to imagine being able to get to a cup of coffee between my feet in a car. Most of my cars don't have enough room for that kind of bending over. Plus, this woman was in her 80's -- not many are flexible enough for that. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care > > > >LOL! There was no cup holder in the car??? > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > bending over. Plus, this woman was in her 80's -- not many are flexible > enough for that. Already answered. Other suggestions included having the son hold the cup for her. Doan > The jury in that case heard sworn testimony from McDonald's own > safety consultant that asserted that the complaints of 700 people > being burned was "basically trivial" Oh, that had to have done McD's defense a lot of good, no doubt. I'm sure the lawyers were happy as clams to hear that guy testify. Anyone care to advance odds on the chances that he still works there? >McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a >consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and >coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees. Just out of curiosity, I sent an email to the Specialty Coffee Association of America, asking for info on coffee temp. Here's their response (I left off the guy's name, this being Usenet...) ================================== Industry standards call for hot water used for brewing coffee to be in the range of 195F to 205F when it first touches the coffee grounds in the brew basket. Coffee brewing equipment manufacturers design and set their equipment accordingly. When the coffee brewing cycle is completed, industry standards call for the freshly brewed coffee to be held in the temperature range of 175F to 185F, which has also been scientifically determined and is consistent with home coffee brewing appliances. When coffee is served to the consumer, it is most often in the range of 160F to 180F in the cup when first poured and sipped, which empirical data as well as scientific testing has determined to be the preferred temperature range for the average coffee consumer. SCAA, Legal Counsel http://www.scaa.org >You do understand that McD's was serving coffee hotter than you can get >it at home? It was ABOVE the boiling point of water. They had a >special technology to get it extremely hot, and had been warned that it >was too hot. Ahem - please explain how this works... "special technology"? > Merely creating a "dangerous instrumentality" does not mean that you > are responsible for injuries caused. It certainly does if a court, in possession of the evidence, says it does. > I've burned myself on my stove, or on things that have been in my > oven. Operative words: I burned myself. > What if I'd served that soup to a friend, and the friend burned his > mouth? Or dumped it in his lap? Should he sue me? "Should" he? Who can say but him? Certainly _you_ would never think so; after all, how many respondents (defendants) think they deserve what's happening to them? But then, how many others have you burned with your soup? How many times have you been sued for it? How many strangers have been injured by your carelessness? How many times have you been warned about your soup? "Could" your friend sue you? Now, that's an entirely different question. The answer lies in the reason you have homeowners insurance. >We expect things like soup and coffee to be hot. You take extra care with >these foods. You don't sue someone because you chose to open a hot >coffee in a moving car. Get your facts straight before embarrassing yourself next time. The coffee was served 20 degrees hotter than the industry norm. The car was not moving. Other than getting all the facts wrong, you are correct. >We expect things like soup and coffee to be hot. You take extra care with >these foods. You don't sue someone because you chose to open a hot >coffee in a moving car. Another misperception. She was in the passenger seat in a *parked* car when she opened the coffee. . -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits While I entirely agree that we are all ultimately responsible for our own eating and exercise, surely we can't rule out cultural factors altogether when contemplating the wave of obesity? Otherwise we are saying futilely that people just got weak-willed all of a sudden. And how then explain lower rates of obesity in eg France? Fact is that when those of us from Europe go to the US, what amazes us is the HUGE portions, and in upscale places too, not just McD's. Also the sweetness of just about everything, which on examination is laden with corn syrup. Surely all this does relate to obesity in that it makes it much harder for people to control their eating? Another problem is the stupid Food Pyramid, the way US health experts constantly urge people not to diet, not to exercise hard, but just to cut a back a bit, or eat till they are full, a known recipe for disaster. Finally, surely school vending machines have a lot to answer for. SignatureJane Lumley > Fact is that when those of us from Europe go to the US, what amazes us > is the HUGE portions, and in upscale places too, not just McD's. Also > the sweetness of just about everything, which on examination is laden > with corn syrup. Surely all this does relate to obesity in that it > makes it much harder for people to control their eating? On a similar line, for a while Cheerios used to advertise themselves in the UK as "not too sweet". I tried them, and I thought they were really quite sweet - not as sweet as some of the sugar coated things like Frosties, but not far off. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > >> This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee was > >> too hot and burnt themselves when it spilled on them. What was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > third degree burns to the groin? How about for your mother to do the > same? It's a bogus question which assumes McDonalds was at fault. Unless the drive through guy spilled it on the consumer's lap, I absolve McD's of all blame. But hey, that's me. I don't reward stupidity. > It's a bogus question which assumes McDonalds was at fault. Unless the > drive through guy spilled it on the consumer's lap, I absolve McD's of > all blame. But hey, that's me. I don't reward stupidity. Were you in the courtroom? Did you read all of the testimony? If your answer to both of these questions is "no", then your opinion is not an informed one. I suspect it is one reached after reading just some minimal news stories, or, worse, seeing a few TV news bites. So it can't even be described as an "informed" opinion. SignatureChildren won't care how much you know until they know how much you care >> >> This reminds me of the person suing McDonalds because the coffee >was [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >drive through guy spilled it on the consumer's lap, I absolve McD's of >all blame. But hey, that's me. I don't reward stupidity. But you sure embrace stupidity. > Obesity suit may dog McDonald's > > Court reinstates part of suit accusing the company of tricking kids into > eating fattening foods. While I am not a fan of commercial and corporate manipulation, in fact I resent it greatly, most of these "tricked kids" have parents don't they? >> Obesity suit may dog McDonald's >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >While I am not a fan of commercial and corporate manipulation, in fact I >resent it greatly, most of these "tricked kids" have parents don't they? Apparently they are being raised by Ronald and the Hamburgler. The horror they must go thorugh. Jade >Apparently they are being raised by Ronald and the Hamburgler. > >The horror they must go thorugh. > >Jade Lets just hope they didn't come from some unholy union of Ronald and Hamburgler. Can you imagine what they'd look like? =/ 285.5/266/120 monthly-goal: 5 Regardless, the fact that they're KIDS says something. I mean, itsn't it the job of a parent to make sure that kids don't do things like eat themselves silly?? I don't see this one going very far -- seems like a huge publicity stunt to me. Its been nice but all to time consuming. I'll probably stop reading the thread now (not a promise ro a threat -I said probably). If anyone has an actual referenced fact they would like my comment upon just try to bring it to my attention. Signature00doc |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.