Another Annoyance

[Ste11aeres]

Something that annoys me is how people talk as if the lawsuit from the woman who sued McDonalds after she was burned by coffee-how people speak as if her lawsuit was ridiculous.

She was sent to the hospital for 11 days with third degree burns-the worst level of burn.
SHe and her family initially simply contacted McDonalds to ask them to A.pay for the medical treatment, ($11,000) and B. fix the broken machine (the family thought the machine might have been broken) or rethink the policy of serving coffee at temperature that could send people to the hospital. McDonalds offered $800 and showed no interest in changing the policy regarding temperature.
McDonalds Coffee Case Facts | Texas Trial Lawyers Association

 

[Meistersinger]

People shouldn't be drinking coffee or tea, unless it is decaffinated. Besides, she knew the coffee would be hot. She should not have been holding the cup in her lap.

 

[jimited]

How is this McDonalds fault??? drinking hot coffee in a moving car?? need I say any more?? People need to be responsible for there own actions, If I spilled a cup of tea I made at home I would not sue the company who makes the kettles.

 

[King_Oni]

Where I'm from lawsuits like this are heavily frowned upon.

Perhaps people should use more common sense as well as some more responsibility for what they do.

1. Drinking coffee in a moving car is already asking for it.
2. And clearly, holding a cup between your knees, while you know it's hot is an accident boud to happen.

Especially, if it's those flimsy cardboard cups (and I think it's those, since I doubt the golden arches will give away expensive solid mugs). The only cups I might consider holding between my knees is a solid metal, plastic or porcelain mug. I really wonder how much sense you have if you can't realize hot coffee + cardboard cup + holding a coffee cup between your knees in a driving vehicle is an accident bound to happen. Heck, I already avoid this with cold softdrinks, just for the sake of avoiding a mess in a (someone elses) car.

Also; my coffee machine will end up at similar temperatures. I never had an accident like that. You know why? I'll leave the cup on the machine to cool down until it's possible for me to hold said cup and not burn my mouth. So in that sense I also wonder if this person wasn't aware about the temperature. I'm sure that 190F coffee will punch you on the lips like a motherf.....

Lawsuits like this is why every company needs a disclaimer at some point where some "common sense" would apply. I feel the world is becoming ignorant to the point where they have to be told what not to do in each and every case because they'll most likely sue the **** out of you because they refuse to engage in some personal risk management.

I'm also wondering; what if McDonalds would change their procedure. Quite sure people would eventually complain how the coffee is "too cold". Seems that there's a complaint or accident bound to happen at any time.

PS; yes, I've used common sense twice here, and while I'm well aware that there is no such thing as "common" sense... I guess one could call it survival instinct as well. People that lack this so called "common sense" are being overly protected by law. As the late George Carlin once said "What ever happened to survival of the fittest and natural selection? The kid that eats too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own?" and this pretty much applies here as well.

 

[Gomendosi]

Gone are the days of common sense and accepting fault, this millennium sees us more in favour of a quick buck and someone to blame.

It is a sad thing that a person can have this happen to them yes, but the truth of the fact is that micky D's have to provide a certain standard to umpteen squillion people all over the planet and so they develop a plateau that runs through all stores and all products in each type have to match one another (subject to country), that means that you will always get the exact same thing in each store you visit.

I have to wonder if anybody asks how many complaints they [MD] had to weather about the coffee being too cold before head office agreed on that particular level of hotness. The fact is that the beverage is sold in a container designed to hold it at a certain temperature and if the vessel breaks down due to manufacturers fault, then you can sue, if you do anything to compromise that container, it is on you (literally).
I mean, did the sign in the outlet say; "screaming hot coffee available here, hold it between your thighs"?

I do feel a sense of sadness for the people that actually have this happen to them but it is overshadowed by the incredulity I have that people are so disconnected with reality that they would purchase a drink made with boiling water and then place it next to their genitals with only a thin, ridged, double sheeting of cardboard, topped with an equally thin, single layer of bendable plastic to protect that most sensitive area.

Exactly how stupid do you need to be? or is it... calculating, and then convincing, that they need to be? What's that song about money for nothing, maybe a scolded crotch is worth it for a few mill, if you've already had kids and are pretty sure you can hack the pain, a few mill is a tidy little sum.

It seems that while great minds think alike, so do minds that don't think before they act and minds that are searching for a shortcut to the end of the rainbow where they think the money you don't have to work for comes from, in this case was it not thinking, being unscrupulous or just the assumption that because it hadn't happened before, it wouldn't happen now, what made the woman do it and does she deserve what she got, both good and bad? Only she knows.

 

[Ste11aeres]

1. Drinking coffee in a moving car is already asking for it.
2. And clearly, holding a cup between your knees, while you know it's hot is an accident bound to happen.

drinking hot coffee in a moving car?? need I say any more?? People need to be responsible for there own actions, If I spilled a cup of tea I made at home I would not sue the company who makes the kettles.

The car was parked in a parking lot. She was in the passenger seat. She was attempting to open it to add sugar or cream. Mcdonalds had already 700 reports of similar incidents.

 

[Sparticus]

Recently I just read an updated version of what really happened. The original story, I think, made it sound like a trivial lawsuit.
That might be why so many including me thought it was one of those "huh!? wtf?" kind of lawsuits. But when reading the new updated story, it's evident the coffee was so hot [ok fellas give me some slack here...] that it burned 2nd-3rd? degree :hot: on contact.

Those lawyers or someone else drummed up a lot of publicity.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Recently I just read an updated version of what really happened. The original story, I think, made it sound like a trivial lawsuit.
That might be why so many including me thought it was one of those "huh!? wtf?" kind of lawsuits. But when reading the new updated story, it's evident the coffee was so hot [ok fellas give me some slack here...] that it burned 2nd-3rd? degree :hot: on contact.

Those lawyers or someone else drummed up a lot of publicity.

I think people should give Juries a little more credit. They usually knew more about a case than the rest of us

 

[Sparticus]

You are right. Maybe humans just like to gossip. ?

I think people should give Juries a little more credit. They usually knew more about a case than the rest of us

 

[jimited]

Whether the car was moving or not, that is beside the point, she still attempted to prepare her hot beverage in between her knees, what happened to common sense ? another factor is optimum coffee brewing temperatures are between 195 and 205 Fahrenheit and just slightly lower for instant coffee these are higher temperatures than what McDonalds use to make their coffee according to the article that is linked in the original post. 140 f is a hot enough temperature to cause third degree burns in 5 seconds according to the burn foundation, now are you suggesting McDonalds use a lower temperature than 140 f to make coffee?? come on people there is a time and place to prepare your coffee and that is not in between your legs!! What if I wanted to prepare a snack on my lap? and I needed to use a sharp knife? and whilst preparing the snack and I accidentally slip with the knife and cut through and artery, would I sue the knife manufacturer because they sharpened the knife too much?
All these laws suite do is take responsibility away from individuals and points a finger at everybody else its time for people to think before they act.

(By the way I am not having a dig at anyone here this is just my opinion on the matter)

 

[TARDIS Core]

Why do you even care? Anything McDonald's serves you is junk anyway. This is someone else's problem. It was an accident, you can't seriously sue for that. I think that woman should grow up and stop trying to make money from her own mistakes.

 

[Kelly]

I think this is a case of common sense and not shifting blame. Yes the coffee was very very hot but she should have been more careful, in my opinion it's not macdonald's fault that the woman got burnt, as jimited mentioned if you were using a knife on your lap and cut yourself you would not blame the manufacturer of the knife it would be your own fault.

 

[Craig]

In my opinion, more people should be willing to sue for a lot less, it's the only way to force companies nowadays to make decisions that improve the quality and safety of their products at the expense of a little profit. Otherwise they'll just end up providing low quality unsafe products and services in order to pocket more of our money.

If I go to a cafe and order a ?5 pot of tea I expect to get the same quality of service as if I had ordered a ?12 pot of tea.

 

[Mellotron]

I think lawsuits like this are damaging to our world as a whole. The unfortunate outcome is that people are less willing to take responsibility for their own actions. This is something that has crept into society more and more over the years. I have seen other lawsuits where a trespasser sued the owner of the property he was trespassing in because he injured himself. Or another case where someone put a car into cruise control and left the drivers seat assuming it meant auto pilot and they sued the manufacturer for not explaining what cruise control meant.

I have sympathy for this woman who burned herself. However it is her responsibility not to lose control of the cup of coffee and burn herself. If a mcdonald's employee poured it on her accidentally that is a different story and the responsibility now lies with mcdonald's and the employee. In this situation mcdonald's has no blame but now we have an awful precedent being followed on and on. (and I am by no means a fan of mcdonald's and the awful food they serve which has a profoundly negative effect on people's health and well-being)

 

[Ste11aeres]

Or another case where someone put a car into cruise control and left the drivers seat assuming it meant auto pilot and they sued the manufacturer for not explaining what cruise control meant.

But did that person win the lawsuit?
I'm guessing not.
Whether or not a particular person should have filed a particular lawsuit, the fact that individual persons have the freedom to sue companies is important. It is the only time when someone with little money, and someone with great money/power can be on an equal playing field.
I think we can trust most juries to make the common-sense decision.
It is a way to hold companies responsible for stuff, responsible for safety.
http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business Law 2361/Misc/McDonalds coffee.pdf

 

[Mellotron]

But did that person win the lawsuit?
I'm guessing not.
Whether or not a particular person should have filed a particular lawsuit, the fact that individual persons have the freedom to sue companies is important. It is the only time when someone with little money, and someone with great money/power can be on an equal playing field.
I think we can trust most juries to make the common-sense decision.
It is a way to hold companies responsible for stuff, responsible for safety.
http://www.business.txstate.edu/users/ds26/Business Law 2361/Misc/McDonalds coffee.pdf

(You can throw that one case example out, seems it is a phony case upon further research).

I don't disagree that companies who manufacture products should be held responsible for safety. That is very important. I don't want to purchase a product, use it correctly as stated in the manual and have it blow up and injure me or something. This is something I would worry about with auto manufacturers for example when we put our trust in the product they have made.

But if we are talking about a case where really common sense dictates that doing something risky with a product they purchased is not a good idea then I don't think we ought to hold the manufacturer responsible. Like an above poster said, if I use a knife in a risky way and cut myself I can't very well sue the manufacturer of that knife if they didn't tell me not to do said risky act.

Of course this is just my opinion.

 

[Craig]

I have seen other lawsuits where a trespasser sued the owner of the property he was trespassing in because he injured himself.

If someone poorly mismanages their property to the point where it becomes hazardous to themselves and/or others, then maybe they should receive proper incentive to keep better care of it. After all, if you're not responsible enough to oversee the proper maintenance of the property, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to own the property.

Or another case where someone put a car into cruise control and left the drivers seat assuming it meant auto pilot and they sued the manufacturer for not explaining what cruise control meant.

Considering that their are only 22 smart car models, of which only 9 can actually drive themselves, with 5 of those 9 requiring predetermined routes set by the owner in order to reach their destination, this is a particularly silly case. Unless of course he was American or Japanese, since these are the primary locals of smart cars.

Off-topic: Interestingly enough, the automated Strawberry pickers at the Hydroponics Farm where I work use "cruise control" as their autopilot function, despite the fact that it (along with all the other robots) are controlled via the servers central mainframe. Of course when you consider Scotland's stance on the creation and maintenance of Artificially Intelligent computers and robotics, you'll find that almost every factory and research & developments labs here in Scotland will be using the "cruise control" proxy.

I have sympathy for this woman who burned herself.

Actually, it was McDonald's that burned her, though if you want to get really "technical" then it was the coffee machines fault, but seeing as it's McDonald's that owns and maintains said coffee machine, all the damages caused by said machine are McDonald's fault not the machines, and most definitely not the customers.

Here at our Hydroponics farm, whenever there is an "accident" involving one of the robots or machines, you could blame the farmer/technician for not seeing it coming, or you can blame the malfunctioning robot or machine. The mainframe usually gets the blame and receives all summary punishments for "accidents" of this nature. One might wonder if a self-aware computer can feel pain, to answer that question, yes, yes it can, and does, regularly.

However it is her responsibility not to lose control of the cup of coffee and burn herself.

it's her responsibility and right to enjoy a nice cup of coffee, safe in the knowledge that the company has taken all the correct procedures to ensure that product is of excellent quality and completely safe for consumption.

 

[Ste11aeres]

I think lawsuits like this are damaging to our world as a whole. The unfortunate outcome is that people are less willing to take responsibility for their own actions.

I think the possibility of lawsuits like this forces people (including people that run a company such as McDOnalds) to take responsibility for their actions.

One thing I have been thinking about is that a certain way of thinking that most people have, but that I think is erroneous is... (some visual imagery following)people talk as if there is a big block of guilt/blame/responsibility floating around. Different portions of this block may belong to different people, but not to several people, nor can the whole block belong to several people. So one person can have 75% of the guilt which leaves only 25% for anyone else.

I think this way of thinking is erroneous. I think two people can both be 75% at fault, or both be 100% at fault (if we must talk in percentages.) or both be 25% at fault.
Scenario 1. Let's say someone collapses from a medical condition that they had no way of knowing about, falling off a sidewalk in front of an incoming car that had no time to stop (and the pedestrian is killed). Neither the pedestrian or driver is at fault.
Scenario 2. Let's say someone decides to commit suicide by jumping in front of a car. The driver realizes he has time to veer and miss the person but decides (for whatever reason you want to imagine) "I'll jam on the gas and hit that person." Both the driver and the pedestrian are 100% at fault.

If a driver tries to hit a pedestrian, but the pedestrian jumps out of the way, the driver carries the same guilt as if he had hit the person.

In this particular case, I don't think the woman was doing anything obviously risky.
If she had been, (let's imagine her pouring coffee on herself on purpose for the sake of the following argument)I think McDonalds would not have guilty for her injuries, exactly, yet McDonalds would still have had a sort of guilt...not guilt in regards to her, but guilt in that they knew taht sort of thing could happen, since it had happened to other people before. (700 previous documented scalding injuries) In that scenario< McDonalds should be forced to come to grips with the situation (though she wouldn't necesarily deserve the money.) Maybe she wouldn't deserve the money, but McDonalds would deserve to lose that money. (However, when one looks at the actual details, she didn't really do anything wrong.)

to enjoy a nice cup of coffee, safe in the knowledge that the company has taken all the correct procedures to ensure that product is of excellent quality and completely safe for consumption.

Yes.
In fact, using the example the temperatures of freshly brewed coffee at home wouldn't perfectly apply, When one is cooking something at home, one may expect that it will take a little time before the food or drink is ready to eat, but when one goes to a restaurant, one expects the food that is served to be ready to eat. That's the way restaurants work.
(McDOnalds had consciously decided not to inform customers that the coffee was not yet drinkable.)

If the woman was partly at fault, (which I don't really think, but even if she was) she had already been punished. Her punishment consisted in third degree burns and intensive hospital care.
The jury awarded such a high amount not as a reward to her, but as a method of punishment of McDonalds.