The Truth About the Coffee
Feb 7th, 2011, 10:26 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Feb 7th, 2011, 10:45 AM
#3
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It is outrageous in my opinion that McDs was serving coffee so hot.
Feb 7th, 2011, 12:05 PM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Feb 7th, 2011, 03:37 PM
#9
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feb 7th, 2011, 03:37 PM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Feb 7th, 2011, 05:23 PM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Feb 7th, 2011, 07:29 PM
#15
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Feb 7th, 2011, 08:06 PM
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Feb 7th, 2011, 08:23 PM
#18
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Feb 7th, 2011, 08:32 PM
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Feb 7th, 2011, 08:36 PM
#20
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
