Hot Coffee

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Hot Coffee
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jun 29, 2011 3:50 PM
HBO is currently running a documentary called "Hot Coffee". It's a piece on the civil justice system and uses several cases to show how tort reform, caps on damages and mandatory arbitration have affected several people, including Stella Liebeck, the woman who sued McDonald's after suffering burns when her coffee spilled on her. I must admit I didn't know the whole story in this case, nor did I understand the story behind the push for tort reform. I was surprised when I saw the tactics that major businesses have employed to tilt the playing field to their advantage. Has anyone else seen this? If not, I highly recommend viewing this documentary. You might be surprised at what you learn.
Jun 29, 2011 3:50pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jul 2, 2011 3:12 PM
I was also surprised to see who was behind some of the tort reform groups which advertised heavily on TV.
Jul 2, 2011 3:12pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jul 5, 2011 1:20 AM
Its a HOT drink. Not a toxic substance. Hot drinks can burn. I have burnt my tongue many times with hot drinks. Totally ruins my day. I have learned to let it cool a bit. Placing a just less than boiling drink between my legs is something my own common sense does not allow me to do. Most modern vehicles have cup holders. That is where I place mine. If I am in a vehicle that does not have one I hold it in my hand. Maybe she should have just gone inside and had her hot drink if she could not properly handle it while driving.

If I ever run off the road while texting or talking on my phone and break my legs I will remember it is Verizon's fault and sue their asses off. I will rest easy that I padded some slip and fall lawyers wallet and collected a few bucks for myself. Knowing I am striking back at the corporate pigs at Verizon who designed a phone for their own corporate profits all the while knowing it would cause me to use it in this irresponsible manner.
Jul 5, 2011 1:20am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jul 7, 2011 7:47 PM
Obviously you didn't see the program. The woman in the McDonald's case wasn't driving. She was a passenger in a car which, after going through the drive-thru, had pulled into a parking space and was at a complete stop when the beverage spilled. The vehicle she was in didn't have beverage holders and the cup didn't have a very good lid to hold the 190 degree coffee inside. The photos of her burns were shown and they aren't very pretty. She had to have skin grafts for burns inside her vagina. I'll admit that I didn't know the full details of this case and thought much as you do about it. I also didn't know that she only sued to collect the amount her insurance didn't cover.

After seeing this I now know more about what went on. I also know more about who led the charge for tort reform. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't any group of citizens, but was spearheaded by one man, who is well-versed in the art of public manipulation. Do yourself a favor and take the time to watch this documentary. It may not change your mind but at least you'll know more about the cases they present. Then you'll be able to comment on facts, not rumor and speculation.
Jul 7, 2011 7:47pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jul 7, 2011 10:41 PM
It's fucking H O T coffee. Not cold coffee, not lukewarm coffee, not ice coffee....but H O T coffee. What was that woman....over 70 years old? She didn't know she ordered H O T coffee? McDonald's is to blame for making H O T coffee and selling it as H O T coffee? Unfuckingbelievable.

We are all victims, eh? We all deserve somebody else's money because we are all idiots, eh? We need protection from people selling us crap that will potentially kill or harm us because we're too stupid, eh? God save us from ourselves.
Jul 7, 2011 10:41pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Jul 7, 2011 10:49 PM
"The woman in the McDonald's case wasn't driving. She was a passenger in a car which, after going through the drive-thru, had pulled into a parking space and was at a complete stop when the beverage spilled. "

If I recall correctly in her case she was found negligent as well. No duh. Does it matter if she was driving or not? Who puts a cup of coffee in your crotch? Darwinism. Never in my lifetime (and I've enjoyed many cups of coffee) have I ever had the notion to put a cup of steaming brew between my legs.
Jul 7, 2011 10:49pm
P

Prescott

Senior Member

2,569 posts
Jul 7, 2011 11:17 PM
McDonald's is to blame for making H O T coffee and selling it as H O T coffee? Unfuckingbelievable.
yep!!!!!
Jul 7, 2011 11:17pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jul 7, 2011 11:25 PM
I didn't see the program. I was going by my recollection of it. It does not make a difference to me whether she was not driving or not. My main point is you do not place a HOT liquid between your legs in a container that is structurally able to collapse with a small amount of force and is top heavy. Now I could understand a suit arguing the container holding the hot liquid was not structurally able to sustain a liquid at 190 degrees and it would fail no matter how the consumer used it. McDonald's was aware of it and willfully knew they were selling a product in a container that they knew was defective and to pad the bottom line ignored it. That was not the case here.
Jul 7, 2011 11:25pm
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Jul 7, 2011 11:51 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;824288 wrote:"The woman in the McDonald's case wasn't driving. She was a passenger in a car which, after going through the drive-thru, had pulled into a parking space and was at a complete stop when the beverage spilled. "

If I recall correctly in her case she was found negligent as well. No duh. Does it matter if she was driving or not? Who puts a cup of coffee in your crotch? Darwinism. Never in my lifetime (and I've enjoyed many cups of coffee) have I ever had the notion to put a cup of steaming brew between my legs.

The jury apportioned a small amount of negligence on the plaintiff. The comparative negligence laws in the state allowed for the verdict to be reduced by the percentage assessed to the plaintiff (ie. if the verdict is $100 and the plaintiff is found to be 25% at fault they get $75). The actual compensatory damage award was only about $150K, but the the real kicker was the punitive damage award which was in the millions. Plaintiff counsel craftly argued McDonald's should be punished a day of coffee's sales to punish them. After the verdict was handed the down, McDonald's filed a motion for a remittur (a reduction in the award) which was granted by the trial judge. The new verdict was approximately $500K. Plaintiff appealed and the case was ultimately settled for a confidential amount.
Jul 7, 2011 11:51pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 8, 2011 12:55 AM
The Mcdonald's hot coffee incident was not a frivolous lawsuit. It was reasonable.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
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.
Jul 8, 2011 12:55am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jul 8, 2011 9:01 AM
I Wear Pants;824367 wrote:The Mcdonald's hot coffee incident was not a frivolous lawsuit. It was reasonable.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
So you're saying that McD's had prior knowledge that their Hot Coffee was being served....hot? Madness!
Jul 8, 2011 9:01am
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Jul 8, 2011 8:17 PM
fish82;824484 wrote:So you're saying that McD's had prior knowledge that their Hot Coffee was being served....hot? Madness!

not only that, but out of millions and millions and maybe billions of coffees sold in the previous 10 years, only 700 people were burned. When according to them, with the coffee being 180-190 degrees, everyone should have been burned because they said most people dont wait to get their destination to drink it.
Jul 8, 2011 8:17pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jul 9, 2011 5:10 AM
I Wear Pants;824367 wrote:The Mcdonald's hot coffee incident was not a frivolous lawsuit. It was reasonable.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Reasonable?

Hot coffee is HOT coffee. If you buy HOT coffee and are stupid enough to place the HOT coffee next to strategic areas of your body, in what possible way should McDonald's have been seen as negligent on what should have been a simple matter of - DUH - common sense on the part of the consumer?
Jul 9, 2011 5:10am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 9, 2011 1:50 PM
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.
That part. If you knowe that your coffee is likely to burn people and you don't do anything about it or have adequate warning labels on your product then you're going to be found liable for damages in court. Just how it works.

Common sense is a fallacy and even if it did exist would not be a valid legal argument.
Jul 9, 2011 1:50pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jul 9, 2011 2:04 PM
I Wear Pants;825532 wrote:That part. If you knowe that your coffee is likely to burn people and you don't do anything about it or have adequate warning labels on your product then you're going to be found liable for damages in court. Just how it works.

Common sense is a fallacy and even if it did exist would not be a valid legal argument.
Just another example of a willingness by some to relinquish personal responsibility to a litigious-happy nanny state.
Jul 9, 2011 2:04pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jul 9, 2011 2:24 PM
I Wear Pants;825532 wrote:That part. If you knowe that your coffee is likely to burn people and you don't do anything about it or have adequate warning labels on your product then you're going to be found liable for damages in court. Just how it works.

Common sense is a fallacy and even if it did exist would not be a valid legal argument.
If I mow my yard and accidentally run over my foot and cut off my toes, then I can sue Sears, Briggs & Stratton, and my homeowner's association that requires me to cut the grass for damages and pain/suffering then.

Is Josh Hamilton liable for the fan falling to his death Thursday? He should be because he threw the ball...right? Using the "no common sense" argument, the fan had no idea what Hamilton was doing and the Ranger's OF was directly responsible for his death. Not criminally maybe...but certainly monetarily....right? Using the "hot coffee" defense, how could he possibly know that baseballs could be thrown his way?
Jul 9, 2011 2:24pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jul 9, 2011 3:17 PM
BGFalcons82;825561 wrote:If I mow my yard and accidentally run over my foot and cut off my toes, then I can sue Sears, Briggs & Stratton, and my homeowner's association that requires me to cut the grass for damages and pain/suffering then.

Is Josh Hamilton liable for the fan falling to his death Thursday? He should be because he threw the ball...right? Using the "no common sense" argument, the fan had no idea what Hamilton was doing and the Ranger's OF was directly responsible for his death. Not criminally maybe...but certainly monetarily....right?
True. The builders of the World Trade Center towers should be sued by the survivors of 9-11 because they were negligent in designing towers that could withstand the impact of 737's flown into their buildings at hundreds of miles per hour. Boeing should be sued because their aircraft cannot withstand high-speed skyscraper impact. The Feds should be sued for failing to foresee the terrorist atacks. Oh wait...we can't sue Big Government. ;)
Jul 9, 2011 3:17pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 9, 2011 4:05 PM
BGFalcons82;825561 wrote:If I mow my yard and accidentally run over my foot and cut off my toes, then I can sue Sears, Briggs & Stratton, and my homeowner's association that requires me to cut the grass for damages and pain/suffering then.

Is Josh Hamilton liable for the fan falling to his death Thursday? He should be because he threw the ball...right? Using the "no common sense" argument, the fan had no idea what Hamilton was doing and the Ranger's OF was directly responsible for his death. Not criminally maybe...but certainly monetarily....right? Using the "hot coffee" defense, how could he possibly know that baseballs could be thrown his way?
No because there are clearly marked warnings on those products.

You're purposefully picking out ridiculous scenarios that are nothing like the coffee incident.
Jul 9, 2011 4:05pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jul 9, 2011 5:39 PM
I Wear Pants;825616 wrote:No because there are clearly marked warnings on those products.
Sooooo....even though the liquid in the cup is clearly HOT, the cup needs to have the words "hot contents" on it or the consumer can sue? What if the consumer is blind? Should McDonald's put "hot contents" in braille on the lid? What if the consumer can't read English? Should the lid have "hot contents" in all major languages imprinted on the lid? Should the lid read, "Hot contents. Avoid crotch area"?

How much is enough? How much is too much?

So this is not about common sense and individual responsibility?
Jul 9, 2011 5:39pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 10, 2011 1:03 AM
believer;825659 wrote:Sooooo....even though the liquid in the cup is clearly HOT, the cup needs to have the words "hot contents" on it or the consumer can sue? What if the consumer is blind? Should McDonald's put "hot contents" in braille on the lid? What if the consumer can't read English? Should the lid have "hot contents" in all major languages imprinted on the lid? Should the lid read, "Hot contents. Avoid crotch area"?

How much is enough? How much is too much?

So this is not about common sense and individual responsibility?
Their own QA people told them the coffee was much hotter than most establishments, that at the temperatures it was served it would severely burn people if spilled/cup broke/whatever. Their internal research told them that people did not in fact wait until they got to their destination to drink their coffee (which was their argument in court as to why they had it so hot), and they had a history of people being burnt by it (which is to be expected to an extent with the amount of coffee they serve but still). How did you or they expect that case to turn out?

The judge probably awarded the high damages because Mcdonalds was an asshole that wouldn't settle at least three times before. Especially when the family originally only wanted the medical bills paid for.
Jul 10, 2011 1:03am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jul 10, 2011 6:14 AM
I Wear Pants;825978 wrote:The judge probably awarded the high damages because Mcdonalds was an asshole that wouldn't settle at least three times before. Especially when the family originally only wanted the medical bills paid for.
McDonald's shouldn't have had to pay at all. HOT coffee is hot flippin' coffee.

Now if McDonald's had started lining the coffee cups with arsenic to improve the coffee's freshness, then maybe there would be sufficient cause for a lawsuit.

If you're an idiot enough to place a disposable foam cup of hot coffee next to your junk and then it spills on your family jewels, YOU should pay your own medical bills. McDonald's shouldn't be held responsible for individual stupidity simply because they've served billion$ and billion$ of burgers around the world.

As a businessman, if I were running McDonald's I would have offered to pay the initial medical bills as a customer service gesture rather than insisting on a court battle. But I can certainly understand precisely why they decided to fight this.

I guess we'll have the agree to disagree on this one.
Jul 10, 2011 6:14am
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Jul 10, 2011 11:04 AM
I Wear Pants;825978 wrote:Their own QA people told them the coffee was much hotter than most establishments, that at the temperatures it was served it would severely burn people if spilled/cup broke/whatever. Their internal research told them that people did not in fact wait until they got to their destination to drink their coffee (which was their argument in court as to why they had it so hot), and they had a history of people being burnt by it (which is to be expected to an extent with the amount of coffee they serve but still). How did you or they expect that case to turn out?

The judge probably awarded the high damages because Mcdonalds was an **** that wouldn't settle at least three times before. Especially when the family originally only wanted the medical bills paid for.

It was a jury trial. The jury would have no knowledge of the settlement attempts. As far as they knew, McDonald's was disputing liability and damages. After the jury rendered the verdict, the judge actually reduced the verdict.
Jul 10, 2011 11:04am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Jul 10, 2011 11:20 AM
What the woman did was stupid -- and she got burned. Simply cause - effect -- and McDonald's got punished for it.

Like someone already said, McDonald's serves billions of cups of coffee and they had only 700 or so cases where people got burned? That is an infinitesimal number and probably directly relates to the intelligence/common sense of those who got burned.

Lawsuits are out of control in this country, as are nanny state laws. It's disgusting how there is so little personal accountability these days.

I'd like to see there be a system in our country where if you lose a lawsuit like this, you end up paying all the legal costs, and the plaintiff can turn around and sue you for attempted defamation of character. Perhaps if that was the case, we'd see far less "ambulance chasing".
Jul 10, 2011 11:20am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jul 10, 2011 12:23 PM
If you watched the "Hot Coffee" video they did show an interesting stat. Since Texas placed limitations on the amount that you could get for malpractice settlements insurance costs have gone up faster than before there was a limit. As did insurance company profits.
Jul 10, 2011 12:23pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jul 10, 2011 3:05 PM
Of course. People want to use the "dumbass" and "common sense" arguments whenever a case such as this comes around, but they conveniently overlook the fact that the insurance companies (you, know, the ones who have our interests first and foremost) profit from them. And who represented all of these businesses and insurance companies to argue for tort reform: none other than Bush's point man Karl Rove.
Jul 10, 2011 3:05pm