Speed bump video (now tort law discussion)

[Jeff]

DJ, Thank you for perpetuating something that wasn't needed.

[ultimagtrlover]

Hmmm...I believe the temperature was 180 degrees fahrenheit, but please don't think it's completely correct. The main thing here is that McDonald's, because they were using the cheapest coffee beans possible, had to use ABOVE AVERAGE temperatures in order to extract the flavor from the bean. This translates to temperatures that exceed the INDUSTRY STANDARD (by about 20 degrees, from what I remember), and this is what allowed the plaintiff to win this case. This seemingly minimal difference in temperatures actually raised the 3rd degree burn time from 3.5 seconds to about 16 seconds.

Its interesting to know that in JMU's Coffee/Hot Chocolate vending machines, the cups do not mention a warning about the temperature of the product. There is only a tiny disclaimer about product being hot on the vending machine itself, nearly invisible to the consumer. I sense another "hot coffee" suit coming shortly...

[Feersty]

DJ, Thank you for perpetuating something that wasn't needed.

He can say what he wants.

[BLINGMW]

I PERSONALLY still don't care about the details of the case at all. I don't care, and don't think it matters that we don't know or understand them all. Short of them throwing it in her face (assault), or maybe the bottom of the cup falling out (product failure), she deserves nothing.

Like G points out, I would expect it to be near boiling. Heck, get tea at any coffee shop and it'll be hotter than the coffee that won this woman 5 mil. It would burn you faster than 3.5 seconds. Should any of these companies be forced to regulate the temp? Heck no. If their customers want their drinks to be hot when they get to their destinations, then by all means they'd want it to be boiling when it's poured. "Industry standard" my ass. It's called competition and we're supposed to live in a capitalist society! If Mc'd's pours it too hot for you, go somewhere else!

On a related note, I find it funny that my hot pocket sleeve says "caution, product will be hot". Well no shit. Why'd I put it in the microwave? OOH! Maybe I can sue because it ISN'T hot when I take it out of the freezer! :roll:

[Andy]

In Aaron original post, it said that payments are made to be comensurate with the size of the company so equalize the punitive damages e.g. a big ass corporation is fined a greater deal of money to ensure they properly address the situation. If the fine was just 20k, McDonald's wouldn't have began regulating their coffee temps as they do now.

If the temp increase resulted in such a dramatic increase in both severity of burn and the time it took to occur, I would assume that McDonald's is liable to some extent. Increasing profit at the risk of the public health seems like bad policy.

In relation to capitalism, free markets don't equate to free for alls. Companies have to be held to acount for their actions every bit as much as we personal responsibilities, if not more so because the actions of a company can affect a great number of people.[/code]

[G.Irish]

Hmmm...I believe the temperature was 180 degrees fahrenheit, but please don't think it's completely correct. The main thing here is that McDonald's, because they were using the cheapest coffee beans possible, had to use ABOVE AVERAGE temperatures in order to extract the flavor from the bean. This translates to temperatures that exceed the INDUSTRY STANDARD (by about 20 degrees, from what I remember), and this is what allowed the plaintiff to win this case. This seemingly minimal difference in temperatures actually raised the 3rd degree burn time from 3.5 seconds to about 16 seconds.

Ah interesting. But then the question is, did McDonald's know that the 3rd degree burn time would decrease from 16 to 3.5? I mean, I could be preparing chili at my Mexican restaurant and raise the temperature by 20 degrees. Should I be liable if someone spills the beans on their crotch? "Senor, these beans are 20 degrees hotter than the normal serving temperature of chili. You may receive 3rd degree burns if you happen to pour them on your nether region".

Sure, it is only logical that hotter food would burn someone more severely but is 20 degrees negligent? My point is that you cannot possible plan for every contingency when you prepare a product. Should Toyota have to say that death may result if I hit a tree with my truck at greater than 10 mph? They've obviously designed it to go much faster than that, they should at least put a warning label somewhere to let me know the risk right?

Even hearing more detail I still think that's BS. Even if you can say McDonald's was in the wrong, I don't think that's a $5 million wrong. Was her crotch rendered unusable or something?

Its interesting to know that in JMU's Coffee/Hot Chocolate vending machines, the cups do not mention a warning about the temperature of the product. There is only a tiny disclaimer about product being hot on the vending machine itself, nearly invisible to the consumer. I sense another "hot coffee" suit coming shortly...

That would be funny. I mean, it says "hot" on it, what more can you want? Maybe there should be warning labels on knives that say "Sharp: Improper use may result in deep lacerations which can lead to fatal blood loss". Or maybe beaches should have a disclaimer, "Danger, Water: Failure to keep head above water may result in death." Ooh, how about tall buildings , "Danger: Stepping off building from height may result in excessive acceleration towards ground and lethal deceleration upon hitting it."

[ultimagtrlover]

G.Irish...well, I looked at the red and white cups that come w/ coffee, and I do not see any label at all, just to let you know...it's an interesting thing indeed!

My last detail that I think is important about this case is that upon further analysis, it was found that McDonald's did a cost/benefit analysis comparing serving super-hot coffee (using cheapest bean possible) and having lawsuits against using the "average bean" coffee and not dealing with lawsuits. It was found that it would be cheaper to just sell the super hot coffee, so they did just that. This is the business practice that I think is just wrong.

Now, if we relate this whole liability issue topic with cars, here is an interesting thing...ever notice how over the past ten years how many more warning labels have been put on American cars? It's all so that companies protect themselves...because companies can become liable for injury if there is a "failure to warn." Ever noticed Jeremy Clarkson complain about this when he was testing the SRT-10 Roadster?

[G.Irish]

My last detail that I think is important about this case is that upon further analysis, it was found that McDonald's did a cost/benefit analysis comparing serving super-hot coffee (using cheapest bean possible) and having lawsuits against using the "average bean" coffee and not dealing with lawsuits. It was found that it would be cheaper to just sell the super hot coffee, so they did just that. This is the business practice that I think is just wrong.

Now that is wrong/immoral but I still would have a hard time awarding punitive damages. Its still coffee and its still supposed to be hot and you're still not supposed to spill it on yourself.

Now, if we relate this whole liability issue topic with cars, here is an interesting thing...ever notice how over the past ten years how many more warning labels have been put on American cars? It's all so that companies protect themselves...because companies can become liable for injury if there is a "failure to warn." Ever noticed Jeremy Clarkson complain about this when he was testing the SRT-10 Roadster?

Lemme guess, a warning about getting burned by touching the door sills that are over the side pipes? Personally I think that's a feature :lol:

[Jess]

It was found that it would be cheaper to just sell the super hot coffee, so they did just that. This is the business practice that I think is just wrong.

You'd be surprised how many companies do this...tort lawsuits are rolled into the cost of doing business. The $2.7 million that the jury awarded the plaintiff was equal to two days of McDonalds coffee sales...coffee only. No much cost/benefit analysis needed there. The case was settled, which is why no one knows all the facts of this case.

I have noticed that Toyota is starting to take the dumb "professional driver closed course do not attempt" disclaimer off of its car commercials....will the others follow suit?

[Jeff]

The original RT/10 had side pipes. Chrysler was sued for burns on the legs of owners so the pipes were moved to the rear.

[BLINGMW]

If the temp increase resulted in such a dramatic increase in both severity of burn and the time it took to occur, I would assume that McDonald's is liable to some extent. Increasing profit at the risk of the public health seems like bad policy.

And so you really personally believe that they should have been liable? Even though millions of drinks are served at or above the temp they served theirs at every year? Should every coffee shop in the world lower their temps to avoid extra lawsuits?

I have noticed that Toyota is starting to take the dumb "professional driver closed course do not attempt" disclaimer off of its car commercials....will the others follow suit?

I sure hope so. Almost makes me want to find an excuse to buy an Toyota. That's what it will take though. If people start rejecting all these warnings, and taking their $$$ to less anal companies, then maybe they'll all back off. Because you can still sue and win even if there's a warning. It's just a waste of time and thought, and more money in lawyers' pockets.

[CaptainHenreh]

I sure hope so. Almost makes me want to find an excuse to buy an Toyota.

Well, first Toyota needs to have something worth buying.

[Andy]

If the temp increase resulted in such a dramatic increase in both severity of burn and the time it took to occur, I would assume that McDonald's is liable to some extent. Increasing profit at the risk of the public health seems like bad policy.

And so you really personally believe that they should have been liable? Even though millions of drinks are served at or above the temp they served theirs at every year? Should every coffee shop in the world lower their temps to avoid extra lawsuits?

The issue I believe is foreknowledge not coffee temps. McDonaldÔÇÖs made a calculated decision to risk consumer safety in order to increase revenue. McDonaldÔÇÖs knew they would be sued but they decided to risk anyways because in the long run, it still benefits them to have cheaper coffee. I donÔÇÖt see the McDonaldÔÇÖs as having been victimized.

I agree with your libertarian ideal of personal responsibility. I just donÔÇÖt think thatÔÇÖs central to the argument. I see McDonaldÔÇÖs lack of corporate responsibility as the primary issue.

Now going off of what AaronÔÇÖs initial post, itÔÇÖs my understanding that the punitive damages had to match the size of the company not the extent of the ladies injuries so itÔÇÖs the structure of the law that awarded such a large amount and not necessarily that the lady was out to rob McDonaldÔÇÖs. Maybe some of the lawyers here can correct me if IÔÇÖm wrong.

[ScottyB]

The original RT/10 had side pipes. Chrysler was sued for burns on the legs of owners so the pipes were moved to the rear.

i thought the pipes were still routed under the sills, just the exits were at the rear? not sure though, i probably shouldn't argue with a Chyrsler buff

[Jeff]

You are right scotty. But the first RT/10s had the pipes exiting on the side and the cover was thin. The Vipers from 95+ and the current sidepipe SRT-10 have a heavy cover over the pipe.

[Maengelito]

i'm late to the party and i personally havent read many of these posts, but it seems to me that toyota should put out a warning that the viper sidepipes may heat mcdonalds coffee to a temp that is too hot resulting in 3rd degree burns on that woman's battered snatch.

[G.Irish]

If the temp increase resulted in such a dramatic increase in both severity of burn and the time it took to occur, I would assume that McDonald's is liable to some extent. Increasing profit at the risk of the public health seems like bad policy.

And so you really personally believe that they should have been liable? Even though millions of drinks are served at or above the temp they served theirs at every year? Should every coffee shop in the world lower their temps to avoid extra lawsuits?

The issue I believe is foreknowledge not coffee temps. McDonaldÔÇÖs made a calculated decision to risk consumer safety in order to increase revenue. McDonaldÔÇÖs knew they would be sued but they decided to risk anyways because in the long run, it still benefits them to have cheaper coffee. I donÔÇÖt see the McDonaldÔÇÖs as having been victimized.

Now that I think about it, McDonald's getting together with their lawyers to assess risk is not that strange or even wrong to me. Why? Because every big company in America has to be worried about getting sued over something ridiculous like this. This is why there are risk management lawyers. They say ok your risk of getting sued is x% for x amount. Ok, will the savings of cheaper beans outweigh the cost of some stupid ass spilling hot coffee on themself? Apparently the answer was yes.

It still doesn't change the fact that coffee is supposed to be hot and you are not supposed to spill it on yourself. If ginsu makes a knife that cuts flesh 20% deeper than a regular knife but costs them less to make should they be worried about lawsuit when someone cuts themself with said knife?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the argument that they should be responsible when someone improperly uses their product. Now if someone were using their product as intended and got hurt that'd be different. So if Big Macs gave you cancer and they knew it you'd have a case.

Ok let's talk about public safety. Make no mistake, tort lawyers are out to make money. If they cared about the public's safety so much they'd be pushing for the government to enact new or better safety regulations. In the case of McDonald's they'd say, "Look, coffee should never be served at greater than x temperature." Then, if a company breaks that rule they can be fined by the FDA or whoever regulates such things.

However tort lawyers are in general not concerned about public safety and neither are the people who are out filing all of these frivolous lawsuits. They are out to get rich from someone else's money by blaming them for something, however inane it may be. Sure they may try to convince themselves that they're doing public good but they're certainly doing it in the wrong way.

All this has resulted in an environment where no one wants to take responsibility and everyone is afraid of getting sued. At least if there are clear cut laws about safety then everyone can know where they stand.

[BLINGMW]

yeah, there's nothing sinister at all in the fact that Mcdonalds was aware of the risk. ALL big companies do this, they're not naive. The only question that lingers for me is.... why did they change the temp afterwards?

[Jeff]

It seems that silly things I post like to turn in the huge MM deep-thinking treads. LOL. After much review I have decided that the "wrongness" of my use of the coffee example only depends on one's OPINION of the case. If you agree with the court that McDonald's was negligent then I am making a bad analogy. But I don't care what the court found. I think (as said above) that the woman deserves nothing. That is not up for debate as it is MY personal view on the story. So taken in that way the fool in the fast car (he hasn't been mentioned in here for ages) deserves nothing. Why? Because it was his error, just like the woman with the coffee. The point I was making is that if this guy could sue and win it would be the same issue (from my point of view) as the coffee. Needless litigation to make people money. Which I see as a growing trend in America where everyone who owns a business must fear loosing it all (or a ton of it) over something stupid that goes on outside of their control. So really it comes down to how a person decides the evidence in their mind. Look at all the people who go to death row proceedings and beg for the murderer to get off. It really does not matter to them that he was found guilty, they feel he was wrongly convicted. Alright, just thought I would make a post to clear up, I have slept off any feelings of anger I had previous.

[G.Irish]

No need to get angry mate, just a good OT discussion.

If you share your opinions eventually someone will challenge or disagree with it, no need to take it personally.