Wacky Warning Labels

[PaulChristenson]

Originally Posted by N80

McDonalds made their coffee that hot because that is the way their customers wanted it. And if I remember the case, the cup had a warning on it.

I'm not a coffee drinker, but don't you make it with boiling water? Don't people tend to drink it hot?

There are two reasons this case is such a hallmark. The first is that the large majority of the American public feel the way many of us do; that the woman was foolish and negligent with an obviously and intuitively hot liquid and was given an utterly ridiculous reward. The rest of them think that the initial settlement by McDonalds was perfectly reasonable, even generous.

The second is that the legal community almost immediately recognized that McDonald's settlement offer and subsequent move to take the case to a jury was legal suicide. For lawyers the take home point is that you should never underestimate the amount of money that 12 handpicked monkeys will award to someone they can be made to sympathize with. That was the failure of the McDonalds legal team.

Or that's at least how it was explained to me by my father-in-law, who is an attorney.

From the first referenced article...
"When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees. "

And therein lies the rub...

I don't drink coffee, but I can tell you from EMS calls, that 180 degree water will burn your exterior, so I'd hate to see what it would do to your mouth...

Heck, new hot water tank installations REQUIRE a cold water mixer to be installed on the outflow and they are normally set around 140 degrees!!

[N80]

Originally Posted by PaulChristenson

From the first referenced article...
"When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees. "

And therein lies the rub...

That may have been the rub for a jury full of brain stems. That means he found that the McDonalds coffee was only 20 degrees hotter than other places! But that's not how some slick attorney sold it is it?

And if that is the 'rub' then it means that that 20 degrees was the difference between McDonalds paying her hospital bill, lost wages and some damages to paying what the world in general feels is an obscene amount of money.

All I can say is that its a pretty good thing that neither I nor 99% of the members here at TBn were on that jury. But then again, for the most part we're not a bunch of drooling buffoons.

And as someone, once said: A jury is a collection of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

[Soundguy]

Yep... I either want my coffee hot.. or i want it iced.. no where inbetween... and if I order soemthing hot.. it's up to ME to not scald myself, once i take control of the container... It's all about personal responsibility.. a key character trait that is seemingly being bred out of americans more and more these days..


soundguy

Originally Posted by N80

McDonalds made their coffee that hot because that is the way their customers wanted it. And if I remember the case, the cup had a warning on it.

I'm not a coffee drinker, but don't you make it with boiling water? Don't people tend to drink it hot?

There are two reasons this case is such a hallmark. The first is that the large majority of the American public feel the way many of us do; that the woman was foolish and negligent with an obviously and intuitively hot liquid and was given an utterly ridiculous reward. The rest of them think that the initial settlement by McDonalds was perfectly reasonable, even generous.

The second is that the legal community almost immediately recognized that McDonald's settlement offer and subsequent move to take the case to a jury was legal suicide. For lawyers the take home point is that you should never underestimate the amount of money that 12 handpicked monkeys will award to someone they can be made to sympathize with. That was the failure of the McDonalds legal team.

Or that's at least how it was explained to me by my father-in-law, who is an attorney.

[PaulChristenson]

Originally Posted by N80

That may have been the rub for a jury full of brain stems. That means he found that the McDonalds coffee was only 20 degrees hotter than other places! But that's not how some slick attorney sold it is it?

And if that is the 'rub' then it means that that 20 degrees was the difference between McDonalds paying her hospital bill, lost wages and some damages to paying what the world in general feels is an obscene amount of money.

All I can say is that its a pretty good thing that neither I nor 99% of the members here at TBn were on that jury. But then again, for the most part we're not a bunch of drooling buffoons.

And as someone, once said: A jury is a collection of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

Yes the reduction of 20 degrees does make a difference...

According to Andrea Gerlinç—´ excellent Wall Street Journal article, é„* Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided that a Coffee Spill is Worth $2.9 Million, Sept. 1, 1994, p. A1, members of the jury learned at the trial that 180-degree coffee like McDonaldç—´ served may produce third-degree burns in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature by 20 degrees (to 160 degrees Fahrenheit) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Those extra 5 to 7 seconds in many cases could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing such burns. Ms. Gerlin also reported that McDonald's reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.

I'm sorry you feel you are above your civic duty to serve on a jury...

[patrick_g]

I don't think serving the hot coffee in question was a fluke. I think Mickey D. had been serving coffee like that for some time. Along comes one idiot and suddenly really hot coffee is negligent.

The only negligence involved was on the part of the customer who was stupid enough to place the container in her crotch.

Yes, sufficiently hot liquids will scald you. Of course less hot liquids will take longer to scald you. So what? This isn't about the laws of physics and physiology it is about doing patently stupid things and then looking for someone ELSE to be at fault. Preferably a someone else with deep pockets.

What next, someone blinded by forcing French fries fresh out of the hot oil into their eyes? Sue for pain and suffering due to "brain freeze" because you sucked up your Slurpee too fast?

Life is not a Disney movie. You do need to maintain situational awareness. You need to take action as required for your own benefit. The planet and all its contents has not been thoroughly "Child Proofed" so you do need to actually use your brain for something besides filling to prevent your head from caving in.

Pat

[SkyPup]

A downtown laundromat in Washington, D.C. sign on the wall:

"Please remove live rounds from pockets before inserting pants in dryer."

[Soundguy]

I agree... and the 12-15 second thing? 12 seconds is pretty long... you'd almost have to take the cup and slowly pour it onyourself. an 8oz cup goes pretty fast when yuo are counting 12 seconds...

Just not enough personal responsibility...

soundguy

Originally Posted by patrick_g

I don't think serving the hot coffee in question was a fluke. I think Mickey D. had been serving coffee like that for some time. Along comes one idiot and suddenly really hot coffee is negligent.

The only negligence involved was on the part of the customer who was stupid enough to place the container in her crotch.

Yes, sufficiently hot liquids will scald you. Of course less hot liquids will take longer to scald you. So what? This isn't about the laws of physics and physiology it is about doing patently stupid things and then looking for someone ELSE to be at fault. Preferably a someone else with deep pockets.

What next, someone blinded by forcing French fries fresh out of the hot oil into their eyes? Sue for pain and suffering due to "brain freeze" because you sucked up your Slurpee too fast?

Life is not a Disney movie. You do need to maintain situational awareness. You need to take action as required for your own benefit. The planet and all its contents has not been thoroughly "Child Proofed" so you do need to actually use your brain for something besides filling to prevent your head from caving in.

Pat

[Iplayfarmer]

Originally Posted by Soundguy

Just not enough personal responsibility...

soundguy

There you have it! Responsibility.

There are enough people out there who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions, and lawyers and courts are more than willing to hand that responsibility off to someone else.

Responsibility and freedom go hand in hand. Because someone was unwilling to be responsible for her own actions, the rest of the coffee drinking public no longer has the freedom of coffee that is hot 12 miles down the road after picking it up at McDonalds.

I'm sure the same goes for everything else.

[N80]

Originally Posted by PaulChristenson

According to Andrea Gerlin逞ｴ excellent Wall Street Journal article, 驗* Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided that a Coffee Spill is Worth $2.9 Million, Sept. 1, 1994, p. A1, members of the jury learned at the trial that 180-degree coffee like McDonald逞ｴ served may produce third-degree burns in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature by 20 degrees (to 160 degrees Fahrenheit) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Those extra 5 to 7 seconds in many cases could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing such burns. Ms. Gerlin also reported that McDonald's reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.

Agree with whoever said this isn't a physics issue. I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people. Its hot coffee. Hot coffee will burn the dickens out of you.

But they key phrase you seem to be overlooking in that statement is:" members of the jury learned". They were given a factoid that they did not have the brains or opportunity to process in a rational manner. An astute attorney knew he could use such an ignorant factoid to make his case. Fifteen seconds!!!! Are you kidding me? That's a long time. No one on the jury seems to have thought of that. Gee, imagine that.

And their reason for having it that hot makes PERFECT sense. People who drink coffee don't want it luke warm. They want it hot, all the way to work. And in my mind anything less that a rolling boil would be perfectly reasonable for coffee.

And I'm going to step out on a limb here and maybe contradict something I've already said. This lady really probably wasn't stupid or an idiot. She just got careless. We all do it. And I'll bet you lots of people spill hot coffee on themselves and get burned. Probably thousands a day. So the issue isn't her intelligence....after all, she made a quick 2.9 million right? The issue is her sense of entitlement, her sense of greed and her lack of sense of personal responsibility. So while I don't think she was necessarily stupid, I still find her utterly repulsive as a human being.

But let's face facts man. There is a reason this case comes up when anyone talks about tort abuse. This case is the poster child for the obscenity of the tort process. It is uniformly viewed with disgust or humor. It has been the butt of many sitcom episodes. It is what it is.

I wonder why she didn't sue her car company for not having better cup holders. Or the cup lid manufacturer. I suspect there are lots of little physics factoids there like better contact pressure of the lid on the cup rim would allow 13.4356 more psi and cause a distribution of 2.4758 less milliliters of fluid to spill over the course of the 15 seconds she sat there in boiling coffee!

I'm sorry you feel you are above your civic duty to serve on a jury...

Don't be sorry. I don't apologize for it nor am I ashamed of it. I believe in doing your duty as a juror just as much as I believe in the right of a government to tax its citizens. They are both fundemental concepts. But both can be abused to the point of absurdity. And that is the current state of affairs. And in the same way, if I'm not required by law to participate in (pay) a tax, I don't. And if I am not required, for whatever reason, to serve on a jury, I will not.

And if I'm ever tried in this country I will not be tried by a jury of my peers. I have no peers who swing from trees and throw poop at tourists. The concept that 'peer' mean anyone who can draw breath is a severely broken one.

[Soundguy]

Yep.. that's why i have to hold that little stinking bar up on my lawnmower to keep it running.. because some idiot did something real stupid a few years back and got paid for it..

soundguy