Wizard of Id by Parker and Hart for February 09, 2013

Someone tried suing McDonalds once forthe very same reason.

Me niether. Judgement for the defendant. Everyone knows coffee is hot.

Part of the reason that the lady was so badly burned by that coffee is that McDonalds keep the coffee in the urns just short of boiling so that a “to go” coffee would still be hot when people would arrive at work at the end of a 30 min drive. Coffee is not supposed to be so hot that it boils your mouth when you go to drink it.

A steamed wiener…

I’ve thought too that McDonald’s (and a few other places) keep the coffee too hot, but it doesn’t seem worthy of a multimillion dollar lawsuit. Coffee at the right temperature can still burn if you spill it on yourself.

I don’t like McDonald’s coffee anyway. When it’s cooled down enough to drink, it’s bitter.

Gomics has its trollers, frivolous litigation has plenty of the same.

I liked the lawsuit where a prisoner tried to escape, got injured and recaptured, and sued the prison for the injury…and won!

The Fink at least has a certain variety of street smarts. -——————————————-I enjoy the instructions on prepared dinners that tell you after after 25 minutes in the OVEN to “Be careful, it may be hot.” I can’t remember the last time I put something in an oven to make it cold.

No-this is a family cartoon and no one wants to see exhibit A

Actually, the machine was malfunctioning & making the coffee even hotter than it should have been. They knew about it & had not repaired it. The amount of the payout was profit from one day’s coffee sales…

When you put the coffee cup between your legs to put stuff in it and then the pressure from holding it causes it to spill, I think that is your fault and that makes it a frivolous lawsuit. Moral of the story: Coffee is HOT and it is supposed to be HOT, case dismissed.

Assuming all these stories are true (there may have been more than one incident):Someone placing a cup between their knees and taking the lid off is asking for trouble.A lid only works if you use it. Therefore, how can you call it defective if you took it off? Besides, I’ve never seen a coffee cup lid that would stay on if you spill a full cup.If, as someone said, the coffee maker was malfunctioning and making it even hotter than usual, with the proper steps not being taken to fix it, the local management (not the company) should indeed be held responsible, for reasonable compensation.

The cartoon says nothing about McDonald’s. They were careful not to name the restaurant.

The McDonalds story…

Lady went to McD, her elderly mother in the passenger seat. Gets coffee, hands it to mom.

Coffee is served at 180 degrees. State health regulation requires coffee to be served at a minimum of 165 degrees.

Some fast food places keep coffee above state minimums to account for mistakes by staff, slight variations in equipment or equipment not operating quite right. Call it a buffer. You could argue a 15 degree buffer is a bit much, I suppose.

Also, people prefer their coffee very hot, and McD has found that 180 degree coffee sells the best.

Anyhow, mom takes coffee places it on dash. Lady pulls away from window, coffee falls off dash, lands on mom, lid comes off, mom is badly burned by hot coffee.

Lady and mom sue McD for millions because coffee was dangerously hot (not because lid fell off when it landed on mom), and win.

I actually had the opportunity to speak to and of the attorneys involved. Their case was McD coffee was dangerously hot, and a 15 degree buffer was excessive.

Oh, as for my opinion. Mom is an American. It is common knowledge coffee is served very hot here. McD coffee is not served any hotter than at most other fast food places or restaurants. She knew better than to put that hot coffee in such a dangerous place where it could fall and scald someone. Fault was with mom for being stupid and lady for not paying attention and seeing dangerous place coffee was in.

Many fast food places will NOT put in a sugar and 2 creams(or whatever) and it is left to you to open the packets of sugar and cream, take the lid off, and add them. The coffee is all the way to the top, there is no room for an ice cube and the goodies, so the hot coffee spills, or you have to wait until after you have eaten breakfast to drink your coffee.

What would the king have said if the client was a female?

Re: Liebeck vs McDonald’sIf you want to read a factual report (from the ’Lectric Law Library), look here:http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm[Note: This report states that a secret settlement was reached, so no one will ever know how much money was actually awarded.]

I’m really glad this subject came up. I was also led to this interview by Amy Goodman (worth watching):http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i2ktM-lIfeQ

It really shows that some of the comments on this thread were made by people who don’t have a clue.

The real reason that McD’s lost the case was based on the findings that both their marketing department and legal department made when it was decided to brew the coffee at the higher temperature.

- It wasn’t for customer satisfaction, it was for more money—McD’s found that they could brew more coffee of out their grounds at a higher temperature and sell it, thereby getting more money out of their coffee grounds packages.

- But there was a catch—the scalding temperaratures also resulted in higher risks to employees who handled this coffee.

- And here’s where the legal department really screwed up here—when asked what the consequences of brewing more coffee at higher temperatures would effect profitibility in light of the increased injuries suffered by employees, the lawyers responded that the increased revenues generated by the sale of more coffee per package of grounds would offset any losses suffered by scalding injuries.

However, the lawyers did not see what would be a problem if a customer got injured by scalding hot coffee.

So when Stella Liebeck sued McDonalds for her injuries brought on by spilling this coffee brewed at scalding hot temperatures, there was already plenty of evidence in McD’s own files that acknowledged that they knew the risks in brewing and serving coffee at a higher temperature, but decided to continue on doing so because they hoped that the increased profits generated by this process would offset any loss brought on to them anticipating more employee injury claims than customer injury claims.

And the last part is important because any employee injury claim would be paid out through McD’s worker’s compensation carrier (or the franchisee’s worker’s comp carrier) which means that McD’s liabilities there would be borne by somebody other than McD’s.

But any liabilities arising from McD’s customer injuries would have to be covered either by McD’s themself or their general liability insurance carrier (or the franchisee’s GL carrier) meaning that somebody else would be paying for that loss in the short run and not affect McD’s profitibility.

And when the trial court jury heard all this, they decided that McD’s definitely needed to pay and not just pass this on to any insurance carrier covering them in these liabilities, and so that is why Stella Liebeck was awarded $2.86 Million initially, even though the court later fixed that amount to $640,000—one of the settlement amounts proposed by McDonald’s in those talks—plus another undisclosed amount as part of their settlement agreement.

And the reason I know about this is because I was a paralegal in a Law Firm where we got many of the legal papers out there in the lobby for the customers and all us employees to read and many of us, lawyers and staff alike, were laughing at how careless McD’s legal department handled this issue, especially how they committed all of this to documentation to the point that it would be reproduced and sent to opposing counsel during the discovery phase and that such a production always brings with it the risks that the wrong documents get produced with the information that the plaintiff needs to win their case and that is always a risk with a document production.

HASN’T THIS CASE BEEN DECIDED ALREADY?

20K

don’t you mean how much????

and what was Exhibit ‘A’????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that the fink er the King didn’t want to see????!!!!!!!!

People commenting on the McDonalds case should make the effort to read the story of the case before passing judgement. This wasn’t simply a situation where someone did something stupid. The store in question had been told not to do this – it was their fault.

I just re-read my comment to Software Guy and realized that my reference to somebody could possibly be misinterpreted as meaning somebodyshort – which was not my intention at all..Sorry for any misunderstanding.