The Truth About the Coffee
 

"HOT COFFEE" is the name of a documentary that premiered at Sundance and was purchased by HBO. It gets into the details of that McDonalds case, the woman who reportedly "got millions" for spilling hot coffee on herself.

The coffee was almost 200 degrees, just below boiling. McDonalds coffee is usually served at 145 degrees which cannot usually cause anything worse than a 1st degree burn.

The woman was not driving, she was in the passenger seat and the car was parked. The coffee was so hot on her tongue that it caused her to gasp and spit it up, in the commotion the coffee spilled on her lap.

She had THIRD DEGREE burns from this coffee and over $10,000 in medical bills.

McDonalds offered to settle for $800.

The jury awarded her "two days worth of McDonald's coffee profits" which they didn't know would add up to 2.9 million dollars.

The judge reduced the award to $480,000.

McDonalds continued to fuel the story that that woman had received millions for "minor burns" that she got from spilling coffee on herself. According to the film , big business was on a mission to give a bad name to "negligence" lawsuits and to swade the opinions of judges and jurys. The movie moves on to other remarkable cases where big businesses have avoided paying out lawsuits due to "caps" in some states, and a whole big mess involving Karl Rove that I dont' quite understand because I haven't seen the movie yet.

Sorry, meant to post this in the lounge!

I worked in the restaurant business for many years and spilled coffee on me at least a few times standing directly next to the coffee machine, directly from the pot or freshly poured cup. It stung but that was it and that was coffee that perfectly suitable for drinking (never sent back for being too cold, etc.). Curse, rinse your hand and move on.

It is outrageous in my opinion that McDs was serving coffee so hot.

Apparently nobody can make mistakes

OR instead of taking the work and word of a film, read a law journal synopsis. She DID have 3rd degree burns and needed skin grafts.The judge DID find some of her actions contributory.
And it was McDonald's attitude of dismissal that was a major factor.



"There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
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.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.

We studied this case in a business law class. Anyone who knows the facts of this would never see it is frivolous or see McDonalds as innocent in this.

Wow! How much damage a small cup can do!

I was one of those who initially thought this was a frivolous lawsuit. Thanks for the information.

Alternatively

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...;s_Restaurants

Coffee Lady had burns over 16 percent of her body and never fully recovered. She agreed to settle for 50,000 but Mcdonalds said no. Despite having 700 reports of scaldings before, Mcdonalds kept it at 185 degrees, reportedly because it has an extra hour of shelf life at the higher temperature. Coffee Lady was found 25% negligent for holding a flimsy styrofoam cup between her legs, and McDonalds was found 75% negligent for serving 185 degree coffee in a flimsy styrofoam cup that fell apart when the cover came off.

But the documentary is about tort reform, and how big business rules the country. Did you know that most employment contracts today require you to sign away your rights to a jury trial if you are harmed by the company?

Check this video, gets interesting from the 2minute mark onward:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGPU3...eature=related

wow, it just goes to show how we can be manipulated by big corporations thru the media. thanks for posting this.

nana & sylvia, I really was shocked when I learned the real story about this case. What bothered me most of all is how many times McDonalds had been warned about the temperature of their coffee.

Very imformative summary, Gretchen. Thanks for posting it. I know there are exceptions but USUALLY a jury will find the damages correctly as well as the percentage of negligence. Too bad the final settlement is confidential, but so many are.

<<Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap. >>

<<the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill>>

Do not buy into the hype of this case. It is completely sensationalized. If you don't believe that, why are we still talking about it? Before believing any of the various presentations of the case, pull the court docs and read them.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?


Oh - and what is carrying this failing economy right now? Who is driving down the unemployment rate? Who is funding all of that unemployment being paid to the unemployed?

Oh, yeah, that would be CORPORATIONS.
This has nothing to do with "big business." It is more a desperate example of why this country needs tort reform.

I only know that I rarely get a good HOT cup of coffee anymore. I hate that!

mom23...just how much "personal responsibility" do you think the old lady should take? The jury thought 25%.

She was supposed to know that McDonalds coffee can cause THIRD DEGREE burns? Most coffee can't even cause 1st degree burns through a pair of pants. She was supposed to know that the flimsy foam cup would bust under a little pressure? She was supposed to know that 700 people before her had reported being scalded?

The judge in the case instructed the jury to consider punitive damages, AFTER he heard the whole case. Too bad you don't believe in our court system....or at least our court system as it was in 1992.

And they only hype and sensationalism connected to this case was the false reporting that she had walked away with millions of dollars.

Actually, the jury instructions don't come from the judge. They come from the standard pattern jury instructions or are plead as a Motion in Limine brought by the Plaintiff and Defendant and the judge sorts through those that conform to the pattern jury instructions for that Court.

And yes... she certaily should have known that placing a styrofoam cup between her legs and removing the lid could cause the liquid (hot or cold) to spill.

Finally, take it on good authority that she received a very large settlement. Also, realize that it was NOT this elderly lady who thought she should bring suit, but her heirs.

The heirs didn't want a suit either, until McDonalds offered $800.

And the McDonald's corporation isn't bringing down the unemployment rate in this country. McDonalds has been hiring illegals for years.

The award was $480,000 in the coffee case, several jurors have verified.

I'm actually referring to the confidential settlement. And trust me, the heirs prompted the action.

The inital offer - within two days of the first notice of the claim was $800. Upon receipt of information regarding the full extent of the injury, the offer was immediately significantly more -- more than this nice lady ever earned in 10 years of working.

And why would McDonalds agree to pay more than what the court determined? They either paid a lot less or they paid more because of their hidden agenda.

Who cares if it was her or her heirs? If something like this had happened to my mom when she was in her 70s, I would have urged her to file suit, too.

If I were on the jury I would have made Ray Kroc chug-a-lug a cup of his damn hot coffee.

I'm with you on this one, tracy. I was absolutely sickened when I read about her injuries

They did not pay more than the Court awarded based on the reduced award. It was a reasonable settlement, especially in light of the lack of liability.

There was also a case in which a customer went to the self serve coffee station. When returning the coffee carafe to the station, they struck the glass carafe against the corner of the hotplate. The carafe broke and hot coffee spilled everywhere, including on the patron. And who caused that one?

Finally, there's a Starbucks case in which a parent purchased Starbucks hot chocolate and handed it to the backseat to a three year old in her carseat, who spilled it in her lap. Sadly, the little girl sustained serious burns. Why would that be Starbucks' fault? Sorry, but that liability rests with the parents. Alas, word on the street is that Starbucks paid an undisclosed amout to settle that one also.

And just how long do you all who are anti-big business think corporations can pay for frivolous suits? A single suit can wipe out profits for a year or more.

Haven't you ever looked at that warning on your cup and thought, "It's really sad when a restaurant has to tell me that the hot beverage I ordered is hot."

Sheesh. Really.

"Oh - and what is carrying this failing economy right now? Who is driving down the unemployment rate? Who is funding all of that unemployment being paid to the unemployed?

Oh, yeah, that would be CORPORATIONS.
This has nothing to do with "big business." It is more a desperate example of why this country needs tort reform."

Oh - what is sitting on $1.8 Trillion in cash and not hiring, except overseas. Oh yeah, that would be corporations.

The unemployment rate went down mostly due to so many people giving up looking for a job. Thanks, corporations.

Let's keep giving corporations more tax breaks to send our jobs out of the country. Protect them more with tort reform so they aren't held responsible for their actions.

Well, you can take corporations out of a capitalistic society, and start to queue up the cheese lines.

"Oh - what is sitting on $1.8 Trillion in cash and not hiring, except overseas. Oh yeah, that would be corporations." We've had that chat before. You can do a search for it. I'll incorporate my responses by reference. They ARE hiring and the are not "sitting on 1.8 Trillion in cash." Corporations regularly retain nearly $2 Trillion in cash in order to stay liquid and pay their employees and investors. Save it for a rainy day. G*d knows it's raining. And snowing.

And as to that unemployment rate that went down? That's not because people gave up looking for a job. It's because their unemployment expired and they had to re-apply for the new round of funding.

I don't agree with outsourcing jobs. We agree there.

cat - I agree. I don't really get the significance of whose "idea" it was to sue. Unless we want to give them credit for the idea, which I think I do. It seems to me the important point is what an unusually unsafe temperature the coffee was. And that was not something a customer would be reasonably expected to know, it seems to me.

I was once in a diner with a large group of people, and the waitress reached across the table, and across me, to pour coffee in someone else's cup. She missed the cup and poured it on my thigh instead. I had been looking in another direction and didn't even know what had hit me, but let out an involuntary scream that quieted the entire restaurant. Fortunately the coffee was only very hot, not scalding. I got a burn all the way through my clothes that took a while to heal, but nothing really serious. (I didn't sue.) Two doctors were at the table with me, and they commented that if the coffee had landed on my baby, who was in a high chair next to me, instead of me, it would have meant a trip to the emergency room, and could have been very serious, since babies' skins are so tender.

There is no reason to serve near-scalding liquids in consumer situations - it's too dangerous.

NorCalif - Your description of a waitress pouring something on you is an enormous difference from the lady in question in the McDonald's case.

THe point of the heirs being the ones to push the suit was that they were wholly interested in their own interest - not their mother's interest. So, while McDonald's may have been found liable to the patron, they were NOT liable to her family members who stood to benefit from the settlement as her heirs.

mom23 - yeah, I know that in my incident it was all the waitress's fault (poor thing, I felt really sorry for her.) I wasn't citing that story as being a legal parallel -more just an example of how even normally hot coffee can be dangerous.

But I do think there's hot and there's hot. "Normally" hot coffee evidently isn't as likely to inflict the kind of injuries the McDonald's woman suffered. And I would want to know how hot the Starbucks hot chocolate was too, before I was too quick to blame only the parents. I don't expect soup in a restaurant to be boiling in my bowl, for example.

Yes and with the glass carafe, it was the restaurant's decision to have a self-serve coffee station with a glass carafe. They know that glass can break and cause injury, and that customers could burn themselves just by HANDLING a hot carafe. They neeed to take SOME of the responsibility.

The fast food giants are running scared. That's why they're putting millions into tort reform and more millions into trying to sway public opinion. Yes, Starbucks found guilty for putting out a product that a child would want, that could cause harm in an accident. Just like lead-painted toys, just like something on a crib that can choke. You put the product out there, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. Sure the parents are responsible as well.

David Kelley took this even further last night on "Harry's Law" claiming that fat people need to take responsibility for eating chicken nuggets all week. But when corporations start putting this food IN THE SCHOOLS or selling it for 99c on every corner, the corporations also need to take responsibility for marketing a product that has 48 grams of saturated fat instead of 18. Their food is killing people, how is this different from a baby crib killing a baby? The only difference is that the crib might be 100% the manufacturers fault and the nuggets are only 25% McDonalds fault. But there definiteily IS fault there when PROFITS are deciding how many globs of added chicken fat go into the mcNuggetts.

Wow. I only can cite this, which sums up your entire position:

"Their food is killing people,..."

Really? Someone is shoving it down their throats? Forcing them to drive through and order it instead of a salad or grilled chicken? Come on. That's ridiculous and you can't even make that argument with a straight face.

The corporations don't "put it in the schools." The schools design their menus, select the foods and purchase. At most schools, there are healthy choices as well as some chicken nuggets on occasion. Teach your child what the healthy choices are and they will thrive with some exercise. If you have a beef with the menu, take it up with your local school.

Sheesh. Take some personal responsibility, will you? (Not directed at you, personally, but this is all victimology.) "I didn't do it, it did it to ME."

"I didn't drop the glass. The glass fell from my hand."

Ohhh.... How about this one... Well, a manufacturer should not make a drinking glass out of glass. It could fall from someones hand and break, potentially cutting them when they pick up the pieces. Now, I'll overstate my claim and sue the manufacturer because if I'm injured, regardless of who is at fault, I deserve someone else's money.

GREAT. Let's see how far that society gets with that thinking.

Totally agree with you mum23. Now we get this nonsense too.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/114929/u...rition-claims/

Where does it end?

How about bed bugs in hotels? Should we ask for a refund, or just deal with it? After all, it's not the hotel corporation's fault that the previous guest brought bugs along with them.

So the bites are bad, and you have an allergic reaction. $10,000 in medical bills when all is said and done as well as a ruined vacation. Are you going to accept a "free night voucher" from the hotel and call it a day? After all, it is YOUR responsibility for getting into a bed that had bugs in it....nobody forced you to stay in that hotel, right?. Or does the hotel take on some of the responsibility? Do they have an obligation to provide you with bite-free sleeping quarters?

I didn't say that anyone was forced to eat at McDonalds. But if they choose to, don't they have a right to eat "chicken" instead of trans fatty additives and ground bone meal? How about the chinese dumplings that were being made with SAWDUST as an ingredient? Don't sue the manufacturer because it was the customer's choice to eat the dumplings????

mom23: <i>Haven't you ever looked at that warning on your cup and thought, "It's really sad when a restaurant has to tell me that the hot beverage I ordered is hot."</i>

McDonald's should never, ever, ever, ever hand you anything that can cause a third-degree burn. Ever.

That about sums it up, doesn't it, mr_go?