McDonald's fight: The Employee Strikes Back

[DonkeyJote]

Re: McDonald's fight: The Employee Strikes Back

The average home coffee maker brews at around 135 degrees, and this was served at around 185 degrees. McDonald's had received 700 prior complaints about third degree burns and had conducted studies that concluded the coffee was being served at an unsafe temperature. At trial, they even ADMITTED to this fact, but tried to argue that market research had shown that most people drink their coffee when they get to work, and brewing at such a high temperature was required so that the coffee would still be hot when customers arrived at work.

Also, legally, if McDonald's knew or should have known that their coffee when spilled could cause third degree burns (and they did know- there were 700 prior complaints) and customers potentially spilling the coffee was reasonably foreseeable (which it is, since people spill beverages all the time) then they had a duty to warn their customers beyond printing "contents may be hot" on the cup lid. Did they do this? No.

And the jury did find the woman to be partially at fault (she was the one who spilled the coffee after all- though she wasn't driving, as is popularly believed). Her being partially at fault does not mean that McDonald's wasn't also negligent, which is why under comparative fault McDonald's was held liable.

This also isn't like suing Jack Daniels because you got liver disease. You KNOW that liver disease is a risk and you accept that risk with Jack Daniels. You don't expect the coffee you buy at McDonald's to be served at an unsafe temperature or require 8 days of hospitalization if you spill it on yourself. That would be like saying, "Well, skiing is a dangerous sport, and it's your fault you skied into that rock and broke your leg" when the ski-patrol knew the rock was there, knew people couldn't see it and were getting injured skiing into it, intended to close the trail, but forgot.

Finally, the woman offered to settle for the cost of her medical bills ($20,000), and McDonald's refused.

http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

That is a website for the National Coffee Association USA. It's a guide on how to make coffee. Notice at the part where it says Water Temperature, it says to brew at 195-205 degrees. So if that's how hot coffee is at it's best, I doubt that the "average" coffee maker brews at 135 degrees. Like I said, mine brews at 192 degrees. And that's not a guess, I got up and checked on the coffee maker.

McDonald's had received complaints. But I bet if they recorded everytime someone complained their coffee was too cold, it'd be WAY over 700. I drink coffee. And you know what, if it spills on me, it hurts like hell, but I know it's my own fault, because it's freaking coffee and I KNOW it's supposed to be hot! I bet many people don't realize how bad for them that whiskey is. Should Jack Daniels have to go beyond putting "Don't drive if you drink this" on their bottle. It's coffee. It's hot. Hot liquid burns. If that's happens, I'm sorry. I am. But it's no one's fault. It happens.

That is absolutely true about he wanting to settle. McDonald's wanted to make a stand since they were tired of the coffee suits (most of which were quite frivolous). Obviously choosing the 80 year-old woman was the wrong person to make a stand against.

The ironic thing is that now that McDonald's coffee is nearly tepid, they're still getting sued for their coffee being too hot!

[rsnomar05]

Re: McDonald's fight: The Employee Strikes Back

http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

That is a website for the National Coffee Association USA. It's a guide on how to make coffee. Notice at the part where it says Water Temperature, it says to brew at 195-205 degrees. So if that's how hot coffee is at it's best, I doubt that the "average" coffee maker brews at 135 degrees. Like I said, mine brews at 192 degrees. And that's not a guess, I got up and checked on the coffee maker.

McDonald's had received complaints. But I bet if they recorded everytime someone complained their coffee was too cold, it'd be WAY over 700. I drink coffee. And you know what, if it spills on me, it hurts like hell, but I know it's my own fault, because it's freaking coffee and I KNOW it's supposed to be hot! I bet many people don't realize how bad for them that whiskey is. Should Jack Daniels have to go beyond putting "Don't drive if you drink this" on their bottle. It's coffee. It's hot. Hot liquid burns. If that's happens, I'm sorry. I am. But it's no one's fault. It happens.

That is absolutely true about he wanting to settle. McDonald's wanted to make a stand since they were tired of the coffee suits (most of which were quite frivolous). Obviously choosing the 80 year-old woman was the wrong person to make a stand against.

The ironic thing is that now that McDonald's coffee is nearly tepid, they're still getting sued for their coffee being too hot!

The thing is, this isn't about the coffee being hot. Of course it's hot. Of course she knew it would be hot. But when you have a McDonald's executive at trial admitting that the coffee serving temperature was "unusually high" in comparison to industry standards (in this case other restaurants/fast food joints) you have grounds for a lawsuit. Under U.S. tort law, McDonald's violated their duty of care because what happened to this woman was reasonably foreseeable (the 700 complaints in the past). You are absolutely right that they probably have received way more complaints about the coffee being cold, but that's irrelevant. The issue is whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, McDonald's was negligent.

Was the woman partially to blame? Absolutely, and the jury found she was partially to blame when they awarded comparative negligence damages (damages are awarded based on the percentage you are at fault).

To your Jack Daniels analogy, they do not have to add a second label. But it's a different issue. People do not expect to need 8 days of hospitalizing due to skin grafting and severe 3rd degree burns from spilling coffee. McDonald's knew they were serving coffee that was unusually hot compared to other restaurant chains, knew what would happen if someone spilled that unusually hot coffee on themselves, and failed to warn.

Also, yes, it is ironic that people still sue over McDonald's coffee being too hot. People are sue happy and look to cash in anyway they can, and it's a real shame. But the very fact that there is passionate debate about the merits of this lawsuit demonstrate to me that it shouldn't be the poster-child of frivolous litigation as some would like to make it.