Anyone remember this? http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html I'm curious to see if my personal theory about which "side" people are on is true.
I can't download video, and don't know what "more to the story" they're hinting at, so I could be one of the uninformed. But my take on the case had always been that I thought that getting (IIRC) a couple of million of dollars for spilling coffee in your lap seemed egregious. I vaguely remember hearing that she needed some medical treatment (which, to be honest, I wouldn't be horrified if it was reimbursed), but I remember thinking that multi-million dollar "damages" for having coffee spilled in your lap (whether the server's fault or your own) wasn't right. Am I way off?
Well, here's a quick rundown of the facts of the case. the coffee was between 180-190 degrees, about 30 or so degrees warmer than your average home coffee maker sets it at. She wasn't driving (this is a common joke people make). The coffee spilled onto her lap, and burned her with 3rd degree burns (including on her genitalia, and down to the pubic bone). McDonalds knew that their coffee was too hot (had well over 700 complaints about it burning people), but was trying to maximize profits. The "millions" she sued for was A: not her intent and B: what the jury SUGGESTED be what she was rewarded (it was 2 days worth of sales from coffee). She did not receive 2.9 million (they suggested 2.7 million, and she was awarded 200K on top of the 2.7 the jury suggested). McDonalds has now lowered the temperature of the coffee. 180-190 degree water will give you third degree burns on your skin. The video shows the graphic pictures of her burns and the skin graphs that had to be done to close the wounds. The Ford Probe she was a passenger in (with her grandson) had no flat surfaces and that's why she placed the coffee between her knees. When the coffee spilled, it pooled. And she went into shock due to the pain of the burns. She ended up being rewarded 500K, after McDonalds initially offered 800 dollars. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't pour 185 degree water on my crotch for money. I fully suspect to hear people joke about it without watching it, because it's easier to laugh at this and use it as proof of people cheating the system, or whatever.
I don't think she poured coffee on herself to be in a position to sue. McDonalds made hot coffee, and had warning labels and so on. If you drive through and buy coffee, you want to drink it hot when you get to your destination. There are lots of things you can buy that can be harmful. Caveat emptor. If she was buying hot drinks at drive throughs regularly, she should have bought one of these: At some point she's responsible, no?
If coffee was normally hot enough that it caused 3rd degree burns, sure. You might have a point. But one buys coffee not expecting it to be hot enough to cause a 3rd degree burn. Did you watch the video?
I watched the video. The water in my house is 140 degrees at its hottest. It's not warm enough to be hot coffee. I ate a pizza the other day. It burned the roof of my mouth. Law suit?
So? What does that have to do with McDonalds knowingly have their coffee at a higher temperature than whats safe, and knowing it can cause 3rd degree burns? Eating pizza is not the same as having coffee spill on you. And burning the roof of your mouth is not the same as 3rd degree burns. I look forward to your next false equivalence.
Did it explain what the profit motive behind super-hot coffee was? I've never worked fast food, and I don't quite understand how this was profit-based, rather than safety-based? (Warm, not-hot liquids can breed some serious bacteria)
you could get more coffee out of the grounds the hotter the water was. Squeezing the most out of the coffee, basically.
Nope, not at all. I was born in 84, and all of my knowledge previously was just based off of what you'd expect an eight year old to know. Whatever the simple talking points were at the time.
I guess if it was proved that McDonald's was acting negligently and knew that their coffee was a health hazard I can see the argument for the lawsuit, but a huge part of me finds the idea that every accident or mishap can be turned into somebody else's fault (and monetized) extremely distasteful.
People die driving their corvettes way too fast. Is GM negligent in making the car knowing people will die in many of them?
