I know exactly what it is and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone. That doesn't alter my opinion on this issue.
Stella Awards
- Thread starter Questor
- Start date
There is a small difference between being opposed to a law for social policy reasons, and disobying a judges directions on the law.I am not American so I am not familiar with US law. That said just because something may be the law doesn't always make it right. I'm sure there are many members here that oppose various laws regarding prostitution and would be sympathetic to others that were arrested/charged because of those laws.
Regarding the soup, I don't eat it so I'm not sure what temperature it is supposed to be served at. I would imagine that if it's hot enough to burn, then it would come with a lid.
As I said earlier I do drink tea and I expect it to be HOT. I also expect it to come with a lid and I also expect that it would burn me if I got it on my skin. I often have to remove tea bags but I'm not foolish enough to do it between my legs.
I would argue that just because you don't like the way something went doesn't make you "right" either.
Society has set a standard, the jury was informed of it, McD's knew about it for years but ignored it, and justice was done.
I just read through the Wiki article on this lawsuit. I could find nothing to support this claimSociety has set a standard, the jury was informed of it, McD's knew about it for years but ignored it
Because wiki is not the source of all knowledge grasshopper.I just read through the Wiki article on this lawsuit. I could find nothing to support this claim
The "standard" I am referring to is the legal standard for products liability. Surely you are not arguing MacD's did not know what the standard was since they had paid out hundreds of thousands in damages from scalding already...
Below is from WikiI just read through the Wiki article on this lawsuit. I could find nothing to support this claim
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[5] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices.
There you go.. Next time read more
What is the legal "standard" of product liablity with regards to the temperature of coffee served? Apparently the temperature they were using during that time was standard among other coffee retailers. Interestingly, McDonald's has turned to serving coffee at 80-90C.Because wiki is not the source of all knowledge grasshopper.
The "standard" I am referring to is the legal standard for products liability. Surely you are not arguing MacD's did not know what the standard was since they had paid out hundreds of thousands in damages from scalding already...
The fact that mcdonald's paid out damages previously doesn't prove anything. It's often cheaper to just make problems go away than fight them, even if you believe you are in the right.
I read that. Please direct me to where it describes the "standard" that mcdonald's knew of and that was conveyed to the jury.Below is from Wiki
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[5] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices.
There you go.. Next time read more
It may surprise you to know what human artifact is responsible for more injuries and lost-earning-days than any other. Number one, right at the top. It's not cars. It's not weapons of any kind. It's not anything that moves. It's stairs. Falls on/down stairs top the list year after year.
And yet you never hear of any of these dingbat plaintiffs suing the builders of their house for installing the world's most dangerous product.
Comments, please.
And yet you never hear of any of these dingbat plaintiffs suing the builders of their house for installing the world's most dangerous product.
Comments, please.
The really neat thing about the law is that you don't define a standard of everything one can do...it is just impossible.What is the legal "standard" of product liablity with regards to the temperature of coffee served? Apparently the temperature they were using during that time was standard among other coffee retailers. Interestingly, McDonald's has turned to serving coffee at 80-90C.
The fact that mcdonald's paid out damages previously doesn't prove anything. It's often cheaper to just make problems go away than fight them, even if you believe you are in the right.
You set a basic rule. Which, I am paraphrasing because I don't have time to look it up, is that a product has to be sold in condition for which it is safe to use in the normal fashion.
Here is a better article about the case with a little more detail. I admit my bias, the guys who wrote the article are people I know, but it is nonetheless very factual:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/ralst...ds-coffee-an-article-from-aaj/104300429613483
Here are a few bits I find compelling:
A very nicely put together case by plaintiff's counsel.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.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
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.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
That is because you are not listening close enough. There have been plenty of defective stair cases.It may surprise you to know what human artifact is responsible for more injuries and lost-earning-days than any other. Number one, right at the top. It's not cars. It's not weapons of any kind. It's not anything that moves. It's stairs. Falls on/down stairs top the list year after year.
And yet you never hear of any of these dingbat plaintiffs suing the builders of their house for installing the world's most dangerous product.
Comments, please.
And because you are clearly well informed you know that our building codes strictly regulate the construction and care of stairs.
Son of a gun, as soon as I am done here I'm suing my stair maker. I tripped on the top step and fell done the staircase breaking my leg and receiving burns. At the time of the injury, I had nothing in my hands and was using them to hold on to the railing, I was however attempting to climb the stairs while balancing a cup of coffee between my legs. I took the lid off the cup so, it would cool down faster. Thank God, that little bit of foresight limited my burns to only 2nd degree.
Give me a call, I charge 20 points plus costs...Son of a gun, as soon as I am done here I'm suing my stair maker. I tripped on the top step and fell done the staircase breaking my leg and receiving burns. At the time of the injury, I had nothing in my hands and was using them to hold on to the railing, I was however attempting to climb the stairs while balancing a cup of coffee between my legs. I took the lid off the cup so, it would cool down faster. Thank God, that little bit of foresight limited my burns to only 2nd degree.
The point is that stairs are the most dangerous man-made thing in the world, yet you can only sue stairs-manufacturers if their stairs are defective -- not becasue stairs are inherently super-dangerous and should be banned.That is because you are not listening close enough. There have been plenty of defective stair cases.
And because you are clearly well informed you know that our building codes strictly regulate the construction and care of stairs.
If you think stairs are strictly regulated, you'd better believe it about about motor vehicles. And yet there ave been many "inherently "dangerous lawsuits relating to cars.
I read the whole article rld. I find nothing compelling to sway me. 700 claims in 10 years is nothing. How many coffees do they serve a day? At the time there were selling for 50 cents. That's around 2.7 million coffees a day (based on the 2 day revenue used for the judgement). So out of 9,855,000,000 cups of coffee 700 people got burned. Even if you cut that number by half that's an incredibly low number of incidents.
Taken from the wiki page:
Taken from the wiki page:
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.[16])
Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[20]
Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[21] The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91–96 degrees C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit [82–85 degrees C]".[22]
Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit. Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns.[23] McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[24]
I agree with you, the Pinto and Ford/Firestone cases come to mind.The point is that stairs are the most dangerous man-made thing in the world, yet you can only sue stairs-manufacturers if their stairs are defective -- not becasue stairs are inherently super-dangerous and should be banned.
If you think stairs are strictly regulated, you'd better believe it about about motor vehicles. And yet there ave been many "inherently "dangerous lawsuits relating to cars.
All products that are sold without proper attention to safety should have their makes held responsible.
Now that's a "standard" I can sink my teeth into.And because you are clearly well informed you know that our building codes strictly regulate the construction and care of stairs.
Feel free to be an unconvinced as you want. The facts were compelling both to the jury and court of appeal.I read the whole article rld. I find nothing compelling to sway me. 700 claims in 10 years is nothing. How many coffees do they serve a day? At the time there were selling for 50 cents. That's around 2.7 million coffees a day (based on the 2 day revenue used for the judgement). So out of 9,855,000,000 cups of coffee 700 people got burned. Even if you cut that number by half that's an incredibly low number of incidents.
Taken from the wiki page:
MacDonald's tried to bully the senior citizen and admitted they had not even considered the safety issue.
And are you really surprised that the National Coffee Association is trying to back up McD's. It is interesting how they were not asked to give evidence at the trial...
I'm not sure why they should consider the safety issue beyond making sure the cup and lid combination is good enough. Maybe a knife vendor should only sell butter knives because a consumer might drop one on their foot as they unpackage them?MacDonald's tried to bully the senior citizen and admitted they had not even considered the safety issue.
And are you really surprised that the National Coffee Association is trying to back up McD's. It is interesting how they were not asked to give evidence at the trial...
Regarding the NCA, it seems that Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with them about the temperature needed to brew coffee. (McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 1997)
)
How about because McDonald's knew it was the intention of their customers to drink the coffee immediately in their cars, but sold them a product that was not safe for that purpose?I'm not sure why they should consider the safety issue beyond making sure the cup and lid combination is good enough. Maybe a knife vendor should only sell butter knives because a consumer might drop one on their foot as they unpackage them?
Regarding the NCA, it seems that Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with them about the temperature needed to brew coffee. (McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 1997)
)
And have you read McMahon? It's a tad distinguishable.
