Forums | MacLife

Is there no insanity defense in civil suits? A person would have to be certifiable to even consider drinking McDonalds coffee. Surely McDonalds lawyers could have used that.   

Now that's a good point.

They're serving hot beverages because people want them to be hot.

Obviously.  I'll ask you yet again...would there be ANY temperature at which you believe a beverage could be served TOO hot?

In any event, this argument makes no sense because the consumer was not wanting coffee served at 180 degrees, the temperature was picked for other economic reasons.  So everdumb insisting that it is what people want is just factually wrong.

There's no evidence that they want coffee served at any temperature. Most people dont carry thermometers in their pockets. They want hot coffee. What hot is is in a range. Some people like it hotter, some less hot.

You go on believing that.

There's no evidence that they want coffee served at any temperature. Most people dont carry thermometers in their pockets. They want hot coffee. What hot is is in a range. Some people like it hotter, some less hot.

At a certain temperature you couldn't immediately drink it until it cooled off somewhat, so it really doesn't matter.

*Ding*  The temperature at which McD's was serving was above the range of preferred drinking temperature of the consumer.

There's no evidence that they want coffee served at any temperature. Most people dont carry thermometers in their pockets. They want hot coffee. What hot is is in a range. Some people like it hotter, some less hot.

At a certain temperature you couldn't immediately drink it until it cooled off somewhat, so it really doesn't matter.

Which is exactly one of the reasons why they did it.  To cut down on refills.

People sip hot cocoa, not guzzle it, because were they to just pour it down their throat like soda they would burn their throats very badly.  Did you ever see people blow on their hot cocoa before drinking it. Its because its hot.
You're not accurately describing how people drink hot beverages. Even at teh "recommended" temperatures people will often sip the drink until it is less hot. Or they will  let their tea steep for a few minutes before drinking it. That goes for coffee, tea, cocoa, cider. Anything hot.

Also, many people request it hot because they don't immediately drink it in their cars. Seriously though, maybe they should stop selling hot drinks to people in drive thrus because clearly its a danger. Do they know the person will be sitting in the car when they drink a scalding hot beverage or will the person be driving.
Think about the scenario, a guy gets a perfect temperature coffee and is sipping it will driving; he hits a pothole. the coffee slips out of his hand and spills right into his lap. as he is squirming in his seat because he is being scalded he swerves and crashes his car into a pedestrian. Don't tell me something like that can't happen. Is he responsible. is mcdonald's for serving a hot cup of coffee.
The issue is that coffee is hot. If its 140 instead of 180 its still hot. You don't want to spill it in your lap. And perhaps restaurants shouldn't be selling food to people who are occupied driving a dangerous vehicle which is in itself fraught with peril, even if you drive a hundred percent according to law and obey every speed limit etc.

We live in a dangerous world. If you drink hot coffee you assume risks, If you sit in a car and put a coffee between your legs and then open the lid you assume risks. If the coffee was so hot it burned through the cup or exploded when she touched it or contained poison I could clearly see the negligence. But she is getting a hot cup of coffee and drinking it in a moving vehicle. Not only that, she is putting it betweeen her legs and taking the lid off while sitting on the passenger side of a car. The mere act of ordering fast food and taking it out of the restaurant is potentially dangerous. You could choke on food, spill it on yourself while driving. perhpaps the issue is we shouldn't have drive thru because eating and driving is dangerous.

If I were you I'd sue mcdonalds for that (drive thru's). Clearly its an accident waitng to happen.

Believe what you want.



Many "standards" are set by courts themselves, through common law (historically...such as in dealing with railroads, blasting, etc.).

At this point, I just don't think you're gonna get it.  I can live with that.  Feel free to continuing saying that I am lying, that her lawyers were lying...at the end of the day, McDonald's admitted to all of it, the jury found against them, and the judge agreed with the judgment. Because his client was injured there was negligence. If the coffee was 140 degrees and his client dumped it in her lap and suffered burns he would still find negligence.

It is used as an example of why tort reform is needed just as much as it is used as an example of how misinformed people incorrectly associate it with "frivolous" cases.

I'm not sure why you think that I believe the way I do.  I believe the judgment was justified.  You don't.  Great...but I do know what I'm talking about in relation to how a demonstrated industry "standard" (documented, required by law, OR NOT) often works as sufficient evidence to show that a company has acted negligently towards a customer.

How was the industry standard demonstrated. The lawyer went to dunkin donuts, mcdonalds, Wendys etc and stuck thermometers in the coffee and averaged everything out. There was no standard by which all these restaurants were operating. It was completely a judgemental standard created by the lawyer trying to prove negligence.

The only standard mentioned anywhere appears to be the one by teh coffee association who's temperature Mcdonalds' appeared to be adhering to.

How was the industry standard demonstrated. The lawyer went to dunkin donuts, mcdonalds, Wendys etc and stuck thermometers in the coffee and averaged everything out. There was no standard by which all these restaurants were operating. It was completely a judgemental standard created by the lawyer trying to prove negligence.

The only standard mentioned anywhere appears to be the one by teh coffee association who's temperature Mcdonalds' appeared to be adhering to.

*sigh*

They presented testimony by various experts.
They presented evidence that coffee is USUALLY served at a lower temperature.
The Coffee association was NOT part of the evidence presented by anyone in the case!
They had been warned by medical/burn organizations that their coffee was served too hot.

For the final time:  A safety "standard" (as I'm using it here, in the context of tort law) does not have to be written down, and there is no "legal" necessity to adhere to it.  There is case after case where a business was found liable for not adhering to a 'standard' that was followed by the majority of the industry....it does NOT have to be a legally REQUIRED standard!

If you just refuse to believe me, I'll can live with that.

Believe what you want.



Many "standards" are set by courts themselves, through common law (historically...such as in dealing with railroads, blasting, etc.).

Which brings up my hatred of courts making laws 

Courts often HAVE to, where the legislature has failed to do so.

Lawmakers will sometimes react to court decisions by finally implementing statutory law of their own.  Not always, of course.

Also, it wasn't merely the heat of the coffee, but that it spilled in her lap and she had exposure for a long time, due to the way the coffee fell into her lap, the amount of coffee in her lap, what she was wearing, the fact that she was in a car and had limited mobility. All these things exacerbated the injury. If a cup of coffee 20 degrees colder fell into her lap the way it did she would still have been injured. Perhaps not to the degree that she was, but injured none the less.

It's the degree of injury, not the fact that she was injured that the plaintiff's attorney argued. If you don't stop making our case for us, you're going to lose this argument.

It is a dangeroush product - if it spills in your lap. But most people assume the risk. I've burned my arm on my iron and got a bad burn. I didn't sue the iron manufacturer because their iron is too hot.

no. . . but if there was a faulty connection in the iron which electrocuted you would this be a function of assuming the risk of using products powered by electricity?

They're serving hot beverages because people want them to be hot.

Obviously. I'll ask you yet again...would there be ANY temperature at which you believe a beverage could be served TOO hot?

Brat, he's not going to answer your question. His entire argument hinges on not answering it.

There's no evidence that they want coffee served at any temperature. Most people dont carry thermometers in their pockets. They want hot coffee. What hot is is in a range. Some people like it hotter, some less hot.

That's just an argument of convenience made by someone who willfully ignores that there's a range where the coffee can be satisfyingly hot and still take into account the conditions within which it's being consumed. 150 - 160 degrees is good enough.

the fact is, taking everlong's argument of convenience to another level, I'd argue that people are generally pretty unconcerned unless the coffee's arguably cold and that really all they want is coffee with a minimum of fuss. McD's can reasonably accomodate by holding brewed coffee in a large carafe in much the way Starbucks does. Coffee can be maintained at 150 - 160 for the drive through windows and served with a minimum of fuss.

*Ding* The temperature at which McD's was serving was above the range of preferred drinking temperature of the consumer.

As defined by?
Funny, you're saying its above the range of preferred drinking temperature of the consumer - and yet at those temperatures mcdonald's sold MILLIONS of cups of coffee a year. Explainhow that is outside of the "preferred drinking temperature of the consumer" considering so many people continued buying the product.

and. . .

So stop referring to "standards" as if they are set in a book somewhere as you have been doing over and over and over.....

Hospitals have standards for water temp for sponge baths, which is around 115 F. Dig it, guys, 115. The reason is the risk of scalds. I've been told this by several nurses on several occasions. I'll attempt to google it for verification. Even if I'm wrong by as much as 20 degrees, though, there IS evidence for a standard. You guys are just arguing based on convenience and not legitimate safety concerns.

Maybe there is not a "restaurant standard" which is set in stone but you're just being intellectually lazy here by arguing essentially that because there isn't an enumerated "restaurant standard" there's no reason to infer a reasonable standard for safety in drive through situations.

Which brings up my hatred of courts making laws. . .

mmmmm. . . more of that BS?

No Bratty, they don't HAVE to. In fact, the very people entrusted with ensuring constitutional compliance exceed their constitution mandated power limits.
The shorthand for this is........ activist judges.

and yet more BS. Judges will necessarily make laws by ruling against existing legislagion. Appeals courts necessarily make laws by overturning rulings of lower courts.

This whole "activist judges" thing is BS propaganda aimed at people like you who obviously had problems in Philosophy 101, which is not that demanding a course even if taken at a school which really insists on reading and studying.

It's the degree of injury, not the fact that she was injured that the plaintiff's attorney argued. If you don't stop making our case for us, you're going to lose this argument.

If someone spills a cup of coffee in their lap, and due to how the coffee falls in their lap, and how long it has contact with their skin the degree of injury can vary despite differing temperatures. It wasn't the temperature that necessarily caused the injury. It was that she dumped the whole cup of hot coffee in her lap while in a car, and because of that had prolonged exposure to a hot liquid. If it were 80 degrees and spilled but spilled on her knee and didn't pool under her seat, the injury wouldn't have been as bad. Likewise if it were 140 degrees and she dumped it in her lap while sitting in a car, she would similarly suffer severe burns. The temperature is not the only factor.
In fact its an arbitrary factor, considering there was no standard being consistently applied by any restaurant in the area. Its a flawed argument. The fact that you're guaging the degree of injury to determine the degree of negligence is flawed.
Lets take a car accident. A guy sideswipes a pedestrian, while driving at 65 miles an hour. Lets say another guy sideswipes a pedestrian going thirty miles an hour. Is the one going 30 miles an hour going to produce a slighter injury? Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances.
Now suppose this occured on the autobohn, where there wasn't a set speed limit.

no. . . but if there was a faulty connection in the iron which electrocuted you would this be a function of assuming the risk of using products powered by electricity?

There wasn't a faulty connection to the coffee though. She opened the lid, while in a car. and spilled it. If she opened the lid and the cup exploded or she drank it and it had acid in it, then that would be more analogous.
This would be akin to me turning on the iron, which gets EXTREMELY hot, and in the course of my activities having it fall on me. And because of how it fell suffering extreme burns .
Now, the iron company isn't negligent for making an iron hot because my burns were more severe because of how the iron landed on me. If I suffered third degree burns and some lawyer said other irons that fell on people on average produced more second degree burns, is not a reflection of any negligence necessarily. Its reflective of the specifics of my situation.

In McDonald's case, coffee is hot so it burns people. Of all those burned by McD's coffee, some were probably burned with 3rd degree burns and some with second degree burns, and some with 1st degree burns. EVEN if you make the argument that more mcdonalds customers who were burned suffered 3rd degree burns than neighboring coffee shops customers who were burned, it doesn't necessarily mean that Mcdonalds did anythign wrong. Because the injury is specific to the situation.

Brat, he's not going to answer your question. His entire argument hinges on not answering it.

According to various standards, that is the preferred temperature to serve coffee. Thus its not too hot for serving. In fact, how many MILLIONS of customers were served coffee from Mcdonald's at those exact temperatures? How is that possible if its too hot?

I would say if the water were boiling I would say its too hot. But again, many standards say taht in fact 180 degrees (or whatever the degree we're arguing about) is the recommended temperature for optimal flavor etc. serving that coffee at that temperature is not causing mass death and/or burnings in anythingn more than a handful of cases. And she is an extreme example, because of the specifics of her situation. She was in a car, opened the lid and proceeded to dump a whole cup of burning coffee into her lap. And because she was in the car, the coffee probably pooled on the seat, and because a pasenger seat is confining and she might have been wearing a seatbelt, its harder to actually move  and get your skin away from the burn. As such she got an even worse burn then somebody say who drank said coffee and spilled it on themselves, but was say in a restaurant and was able to jump out of their seat and thus not sit in burnign coffee. Or who was wearing different clothes, or who didn't spill teh same degree of cofee on themselves.
THe degree of injury is dependent on any number of variables not simply that the coffee was too hot.

That's just an argument of convenience made by someone who willfully ignores that there's a range where the coffee can be satisfyingly hot and still take into account the conditions within which it's being consumed. 150 - 160 degrees is good enough.

the fact is, taking everlong's argument of convenience to another level, I'd argue that people are generally pretty unconcerned unless the coffee's arguably cold and that really all they want is coffee with a minimum of fuss. McD's can reasonably accomodate by holding brewed coffee in a large carafe in much the way Starbucks does. Coffee can be maintained at 150 - 160 for the drive through windows and served with a minimum of fuss.

If it were 150-160 then that would be negligence I believe (at least as per Bratboy who says that the temperature shoudl be between 135-150). Thus, those serving coffee in carafes where they have 160 degree coffee are guiltly of negligence. At least according to this lawsuit.

Hospitals have standards for water temp for sponge baths, which is around 115 F. Dig it, guys, 115. The reason is the risk of scalds. I've been told this by several nurses on several occasions. I'll attempt to google it for verification. Even if I'm wrong by as much as 20 degrees, though, there IS evidence for a standard. You guys are just arguing based on convenience and not legitimate safety concerns.

Maybe there is not a "restaurant standard" which is set in stone but you're just being intellectually lazy here by arguing essentially that because there isn't an enumerated "restaurant standard" there's no reason to infer a reasonable standard for safety in drive through situations.

Ok, so then if you can get scalded at 115 degrees, then coffee is served between 135-150 degrees. 20-35 degrees above scalding temperatures in the restuarants meeting the standard set by the lawyer.
So then of course, if someone spilled 150 degree coffee in their lap it could cause injuries, severe injuries.

This all points to the fact that coffee is a liquid that, even when brewed accordign to some mythic standard set by a lawyer in suit, is dangerous. It's a dangerous product, pure and simple, especially if you spill it on yourself in a car. Perhaps it should be banned, like we ban toys with choking hazards. Or perhaps we should demand that restauarants only serve iced coffee. Then again, ice can choke people. If someone choked on an ice cube then the argumetn woudl be that the ice cube was too big or something.

In fact its an arbitrary factor, considering there was no standard being consistently applied by any restaurant in the area. Its a flawed argument. The fact that you're guaging the degree of injury to determine the degree of negligence is flawed.

How exactly do you know this?  NOTHING from the case suggests that there was "no standard" being consistently applied. 

According to various standards, that is the preferred temperature to serve coffee. Thus its not too hot for serving. In fact, how many MILLIONS of customers were served coffee from Mcdonald's at those exact temperatures? How is that possible if its too hot?

I don't know about you, but I have a difficult time pinpointing the exact temperature of a liquid by tasting it.  The difference here might be waiting 8 minutes to drink the coffee instead of 4, but OBVIOUSLY the only real difference was for people who had the coffee spilled on them.

Ok, so then if you can get scalded at 115 degrees, then coffee is served between 135-150 degrees. 20-35 degrees above scalding temperatures in the restuarants meeting the standard set by the lawyer.
So then of course, if someone spilled 150 degree coffee in their lap it could cause injuries, severe injuries.

This all points to the fact that coffee is a liquid that, even when brewed accordign to some mythic standard set by a lawyer in suit, is dangerous. It's a dangerous product, pure and simple, especially if you spill it on yourself in a car. Perhaps it should be banned, like we ban toys with choking hazards. Or perhaps we should demand that restauarants only serve iced coffee. Then again, ice can choke people. If someone choked on an ice cube then the argumetn woudl be that the ice cube was too big or something.

You can say over and over and over that "the lawyer made up the standard," but that won't make it the truth.

I remember a recent case in tort law, involving the "standard" of replacing glass shower doors in apartment buildings with unbreakable glass doors.  Do you think this "standard" was etched in stone on some tablet, somewhere?

You simply don't understand the concept of a safety standard in this context...yet you'll probably go on for several more long paragraphs acting like you do.



All this other bullsmurf about ice cubes and iced coffee simply ignores the face that a standard (and the company's OWN ADMISSION of why they deviated from it!) was at issue here.

You said yourself taht there wasn't a unified standard and didn't have to be. Now you're arguing that there was a standard and mcdonalds deviated from it. The only standard is the one McDonalds was adhering to.
What the lawyer did was take random samplings of various coffees in various restaurants and said that Mcdonalds temperature was higher in 9 out of 12 of those restaurants. Now were those 9 out of 12 adhering to a standard? Which standard? Show me written documentation. The lawyer created a standard by merely saying that Mcdonalds coffee was hotter than the others.

How about this though. Since liquids can scald people at temperatures up to 115 degrees F, why not demand that all restaurants serve their coffee below the medical standard - say 110 degreees F? Otherwise we're just endangering peoples lives.

Is this a victory for me, then?  I'd hardly expect anyone to dare make a concession on this board...

And note, in this case the cops charged the man with assault with a deadly weapon. Starbucks is selling a product which can be construed as a deadly weapon! Surely the key is to take it off the market as its unsafe.

Fight the power man!