General Chat

Our local McDonald's doesn't sell coffee through drive-through nor does my daughter's local. It would be interesting to see if this is a state or nationwide initiative.

S

"you cant allow for all the stupid things that people do,
... as was said earlier,driving over speed bumps"

No, Bob, that wasn't what was said earlier.

There, you see? Now I have to type 10 times as much to tell the truth as you typed to tell ... that.

Is driving over a speed bump *truthfully* comparable to using petrol to light a bonfire?

It's stupid to drive over 5mph speed bumps while holding a coffee with the lid that the seller supposedly put firmly on the cup, is it?

That's not the stupidity I'm seeing.

What else are people supposed to do?

The restaurant sells coffee to people sitting in cars and requires that they drive away as soon as they get their coffee -- you don't actually get to sit at the drive-through window and drink your coffee now, do you?

Does the restaurant know that its coffee is hot enough to burn the skin right off a human being? Yup.

Does the restaurant know that its employees might not get the lid firmly attached to a cup of coffee it sells? Well it would be pretty stupid if it didn't.

Does the restaurant know there are speed bumps on the road around where it sells the coffee? I think so.

Now ... what might the restaurant reasonably foresee happening?


"people are people and as such will do the unthinkable../unexpected"

What are we seeing in any of these cases that was unthinkable or unexpected?

NOTHING. And that is the entire point.

Nobody bought a cup of McDonalds coffee and stood there and took the lid off and poured it over their head.


"granted the damage wouldnt have been the same if it was an iced drink the was spilled, but I doubt if they would take legal action over that"

Gosh, that's clever of you, Bob. Are you familiar with cases of people taking legal action when they did not suffer any HARM? Ye gods and little fishies.


"you cant always go blaming someone else for YOUR folly"

You see, you really are good at this.

The way you say that, someone would really think that somebody was blaming someone else for their folly.........

the thing is, that you cant allow for all the stupid things that people do,

like lighting bonfires, bar b ques etc using petrol.

as was said earlier,driving over speed bumps,

granted the damage wouldnt have been the same if it was an iced drink the was spilled, but I doubt if they would take legal action over that.......

people are people and as such will do the unthinkable../unexpected....you cant always go blaming someone else for YOUR folly.....

Bob

OH and I both detest McDonalds and don't use them, but he had no other option for a drink once at a service station. He said he nearly burnt his mouth on the coffee, as it was so hot. I agree, it should be at a drinkable temperature. This was sold as espresso coffee, too, which should definitely be cooler (if it's made properly) and is even too chilly for some tastes.

Ah, long copy and pastes ...

You know how if somebody says, oh, I dunno, "I saw you kicking your dog on the street last night"

... and you deny it, and offer the explanation that you don't own a dog and you were at a hotel in Paris all week and didn't get home until noon today, and you don't kick dogs

... somehow, it just sounds like you protesteth too much ... ?

A quick remark about the foolish old woman who spilled her coffee on herself and complained that the coffee was *hot*, who'd 'a thunk it? and sued poor McDonalds

... it's just so much more *believable* than the science and medicine and law and ... dare I say it ... common sense behind the truth, ain't it? ;)

Is there some aspect of common sense that says that the easy way isn't always the good way?

It's easy to believe nonsense when it's served up in easy to believe form.

And especially when the person serving it up makes you feel like you're one of the select few people left in the world who are wise enough and good enough to understand.

That's the word, RR!

"Drinkable" -- i.e. "fit for the use for which it was sold". ;)

Ha, here's one I'll go along with.

http://www.out-law.com/page-3396

What about the awards?

The Stella Awards do exist and do track America's most spurious lawsuits -- but these are genuine cases (and consequently less amusing), so do not appear in the widely circulated e-mail that purports to be the annual Stella Awards.

**So who made up the lies?**

Well, the ATLA [Association of Trial Lawyers of America] reckons it knows where the e-mails originate:

"All indications are that they're part of a massive campaign by corporate America and its allies to propagandise for tort 'reform' - limits on the legal rights of individuals to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for causing death and injury."

The ATLA counsels that we should be suspicious of "stories that list outrageous cases without citations."

"Remember," it concludes, "things like the 'Stella Award' aren't just cute or harmless jabs at trial lawyers and our legal system. They clearly are part of a massive disinformation campaign designed to undermine Americans' confidence in our legal system >>>> and to benefit powerful corporate interests at the expense of average people harmed by corporate wrongdoing and indifference."

Surely that's not going to spark another spurious lawsuit?

Can i just repeat the one phrase which sticks out a mile... for those who won't read long C & Ps

"12. McDonald's admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;" note "admitted"

Now no one wants their coffee chilly...but if i make a cup of coffee I want it drinkable straight away...if I buy a coffee I want the same... ie drinkable.

There were legal actions against McDonalds in the UK as early as 2000:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/862678.stm

The case against the company in Manchester's High Court will argue that McDonald's knowingly served tea and coffee at dangerously high temperatures.

A total of 25 customers have so far taken the company to court in a joint action, five last year and 20 on Wednesday.

It is thought as many as 40 will eventually join the action, with further cases expected to be generated by the resulting publicity.

Lawyers for the customers claim that the company is breaking the Consumer Protection and Occupiers Liability Acts because its hot drinks are served at between 87 and 90 degrees.



And a decade later, McDonalds is still doing it in the UK.

Perhaps this is the one that didn't succeed ... still looking.

Perhaps if it had lost that one, there'd be a few less disfigured babies and other people.

Silly old woman, holding her coffee between her knees in a car.

Oh wait ...

http://www.5r1claims.co.uk/news/1-personal-injury-news/542-mcdonalds-may-land-in-hot-water-after-teen-is-badly-burned-by-cup-of-tea

Wednesday, 03 March 2010 19:18

A 17-year-old youth who was badly burned when the top from a McDonald’s cup of tea came off is considering taking legal action against the fast food giant.

The Daily Mail reports that Ben Lewis from Telford in Shropshire was holding the cup as his girlfriend Victoria Bennett drove away from the McDonald’s drive-thru takeaway at Newtown in Powys.

Ms Bennett drove over a 5mph speed hump as they left the premises, at which point the cup’s lid came loose and scalding hot tea splashed onto Mr Lewis’ thigh. Ms Bennett drove her boyfriend to her house so he could sit in the shower and let cold water pour onto the burn. However, he was in such pain that she took him to Welshpool Hospital for treatment.

Mr Lewis’ thigh is now covered in blisters and a raw wound that he fears might scar him for life. ...

... A spokesman for McDonald’s has issued a statement:

'We are very sorry to hear of this accident. We will launch an urgent investigation to ensure our usual safety safeguards are in force.’



Even the Daily Mail thought that one noteworthy (with photo):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254837/Teen-suffers-horrific-burns-McDonalds-tea-spills-leg.html

Those stupid babies and their stupid parents! Buying tea at a McDonalds with a baby ... should be a criminal offence.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/126614-baby-burned-by-mcdonalds-tea

A baby left scarred for life after being drenched in scalding hot McDonald's tea is fighting back after undergoing skin grafts.

Shakila Khalaghe was burned on her face, chest and legs – but the burger giant has offered just £75 in vouchers as compensation.

On Monday, her parents Louise Hands and Mohammad Khalaghe said they were proud of how their daughter had coped with the operations.

The accident happened when the 11-month-old was on a shopping trip with her mother in Newcastle. A black cup of tea was knocked off the counter all over her.

-----------------------------------------------------------

How could McDonalds ever foresee that someone might spill a cup of their tea?

What does it matter if it was the mother who spilled the tea?

McDonalds employees have spilled scalding liquids on customers.

What if it had been your baby and not hers that she spilled the tea on?

Do you really think that someone who buys a cup of tea at a restaurant should bear the responsibility for a baby being scarred for life by it if they spill it?

If you spilled the tea you made your neighbour in your kitchen on the neighbour's baby, would it the baby need surgery and be scarred for life?

McDonalds serves coffee at drive-through windows.

Where does McDonalds think customers are going to put the cups while they open them and add the cream and sugar?

Maybe it thinks the chauffeur does it for them, at the little dining table set up in the rear compartment.

Look up "foreseeability", Bob.

Gosh, your "missues" sounds like one lucky gal. I wish I had somebody running my life that way.

ageist? no way.....


I definately wouldnt let MY missus cuddle a hot pot of tea in her lap, and she certainly is sensible enough not to try it!

Bob

I'm looking ... meanwhile, a couple more *authoritative* sources about the case referred to in the email:


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

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.scjusticereport.com/tp-100106115708.shtml

According to Stella Liebeck's attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

1. By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

2. Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;

3. Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

4. The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

5. McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

6. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

7. Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;

8. At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

9. Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;

10. McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

11. McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: "No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;"

12. McDonald's admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

13. Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where was McDonalds' common sense??

And has McDonalds ever yet said: Maybe it was my fault?

And really ... why do so many presumably sensible, decent people want to blame victims for the harm done to them?

Found an interesting point on wikipedia about the case, allegedly similar cases in the uk didn't succeed. Am off out soon but will put the link on tomorrow unless someone finds it first :)

Actually, Bob, you might want to learn a little law before playing a lawyer on telly.

RR -- it was a jury at first, and they awarded one of those huge US damages awards. (The judge did reduce it to a more reasonable amount.) One can understand their desire for "tort reform" down there. What does an 80+ yr old woman do with $2 million or whatever it was? That's beyond compensation -- but -- the jury was undoubtedly awarding punitive / exemplary damages because of McDonalds' complete, knowing, intentional disregard for its customers' safety.

Everybody knows coffee is hot, and we should be careful not to burn our mouths on it by drinking it too hastily.

Nobody expects a cup of coffee to cause third-degree burns over large areas of their body and to need hospitalization and skin grafts as a result.

When I was about 13, I knocked a pot of boiling water off the stove onto myself. I had the same problem with clothing holding it against my skin -- I was wearing blue jeans with a big safety pin at the top of the fly because I'd lost the button, and instead of calmly undoing the safety pin -- yer not too calm when you've got boiling water on you -- I kept yanking at it. I still ended up with only what I'd say was a second-degree burn: big blisters, and I have scars, but no skin grafts needed.

Companies, and people, really are liable for the damage their products do to consumers when they are negligent in producing the product. Google "Donoghue v Stevenson", where it all started *in England*, in 1932:

http://lawstudies.wikidot.com/laws1114-lecture-8

# Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle at 580: ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure (your neighbour) … persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation …’
# Lord Atkin’s ratio at page 599: ‘…by Scots and English law alike a manufacturer of products, which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to reach the ultimate consumer in the form in which they left him with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination, and with the knowledge that the absence of reasonable care in the preparation or putting up of the products will result in an injury to the consumer's life or property, owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care’.

Look at that -- responsibility for what one's acts do to other people if one does not take reasonable care to provide a safe product ... the *victims*. Yes, Virginia, there really are victims in this world.


Yeah, as for the grandson nonsense bit there ... tell my 80-yr-old mum she needs somebody to fix her coffee for her, and you'll wish you hadn't. ;)

Sorry Bob I disagree, you know as well as I do that DIY stuff has warnings on it, it is also packed 'safely'...for eg I bought a saw a few weeks back it was packed in cardboard, but had a plastic guard over the teeth. Then, as with can openers etc, the person with a 'duty of care' to themselves is the purchaser as they know the potential dangers which are perfectly apparent...and I think the key word IS 'apparent'... yes we all know hot drinks are hot and it hurts if they spill on you...but

McDs and others drinks come in cups with plastic lids, the lids are a swine to get off, even if you are sitting at a table..they splash...and the drinks, like the apple tarts in McDs are hotter than h--- anything else I know!

I think the judge was right, in this case.

and PS i think that last line is a teensy bit 'ageist' ...just because someone is a grandma / grandpa doesn't make them incapable of sorting out their own drink and needing a youngster to do it ;)

At last, some one has hit the nail on the head, but be careful Bob,the nail might sue,( At least it would if it was an American Nail ).**M**. :o)>

this Email has been doing the rounds for sometime now.
Many of the comments ARE valid

and actually with hindsight, I think that the judge was wrong.

because( to MY mind) that implies that every DIY shop or tool shop, chemists,or even household wares, that sells a device to a person, and that person, deliberately or accidentally harms themself.......using it,

is liable??


you open a tin of beans, say and you cut yourself on the jaggy edge....who's to blame? the tin opener, the can maker/filler?

not yourself , surely, for being plain careless??

I also reckon that it was the grandsons' position to take care of his grandma and prepare the drink for her!! and the HE was wrong....


Bob

I don't want it deleted - some very valid points were made. I just don't see that Catherine needs to be put in stocks and pelted with rotten tomatoes.

S