Any time you find yourself in an argument about frivolous lawsuits and tort reform, someone’s probably going to bring up “that woman who sued McDonald’s over the hot coffee and won four ba-jillion dollars in damages.” The popular version of the story has a little something for everyone: a stalwart national company, the apparently absurd premise that someone would object to coffee being served hot, and a cash settlement that was large enough to be memorable.
Although the particulars of the case have been repeated so often that it has begun to sound like an urban legend, there really was a “hot coffee lawsuit.” How well do people remember the facts of the case that’s often used as the epitome of out-of-control litigiousness? Let’s take a look at 1994’s Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants.
The world’s most infamous cup of coffee spilled on February 27, 1992 in Albuquerque, NM. Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old grandmother, was a passenger in her grandson’s car when they drove through at a McDonald’s, and after she received her styrofoam cup of joe her grandson pulled the car forward and parked so Liebeck could mix in her cream and sugar.
Liebeck braced the cup between her knees, but when she tried to pull off the cup’s lid, the entire cup of coffee spilled into her lap. Although subsequent developments in the courtroom turned Liebeck and her case into objects of derision, it’s worth noting that she actually suffered legitimate injuries from the accident. Liebeck’s sweatpants absorbed the hot coffee and held it next to her skin, which helped lead to third degree burns on six percent of her body. Liebeck ended up spending eight days in the hospital and undergoing skin grafts to counter the effects of the burns.
Of course, most people who use the Liebeck decision to make a point about tort reform don’t do so to minimize the severity of Liebeck’s injuries. They’re blasting the apparent greed with which liability lawyers operate. It’s also worth noting, though, Liebeck apparently didn’t hear cash registers ringing immediately after she suffered the injuries. Liebeck had rung up around $11,000 in medical bills as a result of the accident, and she initially approached McDonald’s asking for $20,000 to cover her medical bills, future medical expenses, and lost income.
In a move McDonald’s surely lived to regret, the restaurant countered with a lowball offer of $800. The restaurant apparently used the same sort of common-sense logic that most people applied to the case when they heard about it; that is, if you spill coffee into your own lap the only person liable for the accident is you.
The please-go-away offer didn’t sit too well with Liebeck and her legal counsel, and although they made several other attempts to settle the case out of court at prices as high as $300,000, McDonald’s refused to blink. With no settlement in sight, attorney Reed Morgan filed a suit against McDonald’s to ask for $100,000 in compensatory damages and more in punitive damages since McDonald’s had been grossly negligent in selling Liebeck a “defectively manufactured” product. (Yes, the logic was that overheating coffee rendered the beverage defective and dangerous.)
McDonald’s asked for a summary dismissal of Liebeck case on the grounds that she was the actual cause of her injuries since she was the one who physically spilled the coffee. The trial judge rejected the motion, though, and told Liebeck and McDonald’s to attend a mediation session in a last-ditch attempt to hammer out a settlement. The mediator advised McDonald’s to settle for $225,000. McDonald’s – you may see a pattern emerging here – again scoffed at opening its coffers. Instead, the case went before a jury.
It’s safe to say that the impaneled citizens probably weren’t expecting to hear hours of testimony about the temperature of coffee when they got their jury duty notices in the mail. That’s what they heard, though. Over the course of the trial, Liebeck’s team established that McDonald’s had a policy of serving its coffee at temperatures ranging from 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit to enhance flavor and ensure that to-go cups were still warm when they reached their destinations. (The coffee that you brew at home probably comes out at around 140 degrees, so there’s a significant difference.) Moreover, experts testified that skin can burn quickly when contacted by liquids at these temperatures.
More damning, though, was McDonald’s own testimony. The company admitted that in the decade before Liebeck’s incident, upwards of 700 customers had filed complaints about its coffee causing burns. McDonald’s argued that the 700 complaints were only one for every 24 million cups of coffee sold, though, so the danger was statistically insignificant. (Note to any aspiring trial lawyers out there: it’s probably not a good idea to bring up statistical significance when there’s a severely burned grandmother sitting in front of a jury.)
The jurors only needed four hours of deliberation to arrive at their infamous verdict. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages but dropped this sum to $160,000 since it felt Liebeck was 20-percent at fault for her accident. The real whopper, though, were the punitive damages against McDonald’s, which the jury pegged at $2.7 million. (That number reflected roughly two days’ worth of McDonald’s coffee revenues.)
The trial judge would later reduce the punitive damages to $480,000, but the media had already sunk its teeth into the $2.9 million total the jury returned. In truth, though, we don’t know how much cash actually changed hands between Liebeck and McDonald’s. Both parties appealed the trial judge’s reduced figure for damages, and the two parties eventually reached an undisclosed out-of-court settlement before the appeals were heard.
Regardless of where you stand on the merits of Liebeck’s legal case, it’s hard to deny the sweep of the infamous “coffee case.” McDonald’s now serves its coffee in a lower temperature range, and the warnings about the dangers of hot liquids seem to grow continuously. Liebeck died in 2004 at the age of 91, three years before McDonald’s added iced coffee to its menu.
More from mental_floss…
How Do You Decaffeinate Coffee Beans?
*
Billy Beer: The Reason Billy Carter Quit Drinking
*
Weird Moments in TV History: The Max Headroom Broadcast Signal Intrusion Incident
*
Why Are Coupons Worth 1/100th of a Cent?
*
10 Buildings Shaped Like What They Sell
Comments (105)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
Ahh! That picture of McDonalds was advertising its Big n Tasty burger! I haven’t had one of those in months! I think they stopped making them — at least around here. Probably because the McRib is back which sucks in my opinion.
posted by Nick on 1-13-2011 at 10:01 am
This may just be my memory failing, but wasn’t there something also in the suit that came out with those 700 complaints. It was something like because McDonald’s knew about the problem and did nothing about it or they had refused to print the “caution” labels on the cup because it would be extra money or something of that nature.
Just seemed like there was more than just “they knew it was too hot”.
posted by Steven Q on 1-13-2011 at 10:02 am
Certainly, it was wrong for McDonald’s to serve coffee at an elevated temperature without informing its customers (if indeed that information was not available), but that wrong was done to *all* customers of McDonald’s – not just the plaintiff in the case. If it were up to me, I would have fined McDonald’s $20,000,000 payable to some worthy cause that would benefit all of society and they would not get a tax break for it. I think that McDonald’s was being evil. I would have given the plaintiff nothing but a reminder that she was old enough to know better. I think that the plaintiff was being stupid. Case closed.
posted by John on 1-13-2011 at 10:10 am
The stalwart national company would be the defendant, not the plaintiff.
posted by Dave on 1-13-2011 at 10:14 am
Thank you so much for posting this info. I’m amazed how many times other people bring up Ms. Liebeck in conversation as a cautionary tale, and I try to defend her when I can. It makes me sad that she has turned into a legal punch line.
posted by Beth on 1-13-2011 at 10:15 am
It’s still ridiculous to be able to sue a company for your own misuse of their product. Yes, coffee is hot – it tends to be made with boiling-hot water. The coffee was probably no hotter than boiling water. The lid was secure. Opening it over your lap is stupid. If you need to add something to coffee, you don’t do it while seated in a car. Cars aren’t designed for safe food preparation.
posted by Deb on 1-13-2011 at 10:15 am
I wonder if I can sue GM for making a car that I can fall out of, and get run over by, while leaning out the door trying to scoop up the morning paper, drinking a bloody mary, and trying to snort a half-gram of coke out of the barrel of an unregisterd handgun?
Just wondering.
Tim
posted by tim on 1-13-2011 at 10:16 am
I was a McDonald’s manager during the time this case was going on and after. there was a small caution on the coffee cups before, it was increased in size adn printed all around the cup. We also dropped Hot Chocolate from the menu, since dairy retains the heat longer.
When I attended Hamburger University in 1995, the McDonald’s corporation lawyer gave the final speech. He mentioned a few items that we didn’t know at the time, like she was out with the grandson in a car with no cup holders, something that didn’t seem to happen very often. Also, the lawyer that brought up the many settlements was hired by the franchise owner, not McD Corp. He was gagged ordered regarding the settlement but held up 6 fingers.
posted by Mary on 1-13-2011 at 10:19 am
@Deb — the article says they served their coffee at 180 to 190 degrees, which is not as hot as boiling water (212 degrees) but is significantly hotter than the 140 degree temp of coffee brewed at home, and definitely hot enough to cause burns.
You seem to imply that boiling water is really not that hot, but I wouldn’t want to dump it on my lap! And if I were assuming that the coffee’s temperature was what I was used to at home, I would act differently than if I knew it was 50 degrees warmer than that.
posted by Hillary on 1-13-2011 at 10:57 am
Good article. And it makes clear of 2 points: COFFEE IS HOT AND CAN BURN IF YOU SPILL ON YOUR DAMN PANTS. And 2: JURIES ARE MADE UP OF PEOPLE TOO STUPID TO GET OUT OF JURY DUTY.
This was not her first time to get coffee I bet, so she very likely KNEW it was very hot.
She’s an idiot, the lawyers were idiots, the jury was a bunch of idiots.
McDonalds didn’t settle because they foolishly believed in the system that this case would be found in their favor.
posted by david on 1-13-2011 at 10:59 am
I remember the months after this case found a new coffee cup at my McDonald’s. The thing was covered with warnings about the contents being hot. In three or four languages if I recall. I even checked the bottom to see if they had printed: “You hear that, lady? COFFEE IS F**CKING HOT!!” No such luck, but I still found the cups funny.
posted by EMStoveken on 1-13-2011 at 11:07 am
@Tim – how is that at all related to what happened in this case?
Quite honestly, I can’t imagine that there are many people reading this that, if their OWN grandmother were burned by scalding, unusually hot coffee and spent 8 days in the hospital as a result, wouldn’t encourage her to try to recoup at least some of her costs from the coffee vendor. It’s not like she fabricated her injuries or expenses, and holding the vendor accountable might prevent burns to other unsuspecting customers in the future.
And if the vendor completely rebuffed our grandmother, I imagine many of us would encourage her to get an attorney and resolve a settlement through the legal process. It was McDonald’s refusal to negotiate that led to the jury trial, NOT Ms. Liebeck’s greed.
Of course I can also imagine that there are a few readers out there who would say “Screw you, Grandma, that was really dumb and ain’t nothing free in this life…personal responsibility and all. Guess you learned your lesson! Good luck with those skin grafts.”
And of course it is very easy to say this when it is somebody ELSE’S grandmother.
posted by Hillary on 1-13-2011 at 11:10 am
@Mary
interesting…i didn’t know she had a grandson in the car…
and i did laught a bit at the “I attended Hamburger University” line…not going to lie!
posted by Megaroo on 1-13-2011 at 11:21 am
@ Megaroo
I have a degree in Hamburgerlogy and even made the Dean’s list (not as easy as it sounds). It usually gets a smile at job interviews too. :)
posted by Mary on 1-13-2011 at 11:29 am
I’m curious as to whether the converse of bad beer is in effect with McDonald’s coffee. That is to say, bad beer served cold is technically palatable to someone with a dead tongue. By that line of logic, is it feasible to explore the hypothesis that bad coffee served hot is technically palatable?
I ask this as I finish my cup of Caribou Coffee, Kenya light roast, at slightly warmer than room temperature. It’s still deliciousness and joy on my tongue.
posted by lex on 1-13-2011 at 11:29 am
Man, you guys are mean sometimes :(
She’d obviously never spilled the coffee on herself before, so she had no reason to really think about the implications of her routine–I somehow doubt that any of us would continue with some of the mindless things we do if we knew that they could, say, cover six percent of our bodies with third degree burns.
David, I’ve spilled hot drinks from restaurants onto my lap in the past, and I was certainly never hospitalized for it. You don’t think the fact that this poor woman had to have skin grafts indicates that the drink was unreasonably hot? I don’t think anyone involved in this case was an idiot, least of all the jurors who made it a point to indicate that Liebeck was partially at fault (which is NEVER mentioned in casual conversation).
posted by Lindsaur on 1-13-2011 at 11:30 am
I think the fact that they continually ignored other research damned them. Yes, coffee is supposed to be hot, but if it’s served at dangerous tempatures, and the company knows the temperature is dangerous and has ignored other injuries and continually rebuffed attempts to settle, well, the blame switches.
I also seem to remember, but may be wrong, that the lids used were faulty in some way, and nothing was done to change them. Again, I may be making that up, but I do remember hearing it somewhere.
posted by hillary on 1-13-2011 at 11:38 am
Funny the Judge from this case was on our local talk show and he stated that Mcd’s had several years of memos stating that the Coffee was dangerous and the cups were not designed for beverages over 120 degrees. McD’s knew this several years prior to the case and had even sent a memo dated the day of the accident. I had always thought it was the grandmothers (well lawyers)fault as well until I heard about all of these details that were glossed over. It was a great conversation.
posted by James on 1-13-2011 at 11:41 am
You mentioned it in your article, but it’s worth restating: People seem to overlook that the coffee was excessively hot (thus a defective product). Should it be okay to serve a drink that isn’t drinkable?
If it was at a normal temperature, the grandmother would not have sustained the bad burns.
posted by Clayton on 1-13-2011 at 11:44 am
Yes, the woman was horribly burned, and being elderly the injuries would be worse than if she were in her 20′s. And I agree, she should get some form of compensation for her injuries. And no, McDonald’s wasn’t cooperating.
But seriously? She put the coffee between her legs to add cream and sugar? Was this her first experience with a to-go cup, either hot or cold? You put any cup between your legs, and try to take the lid off, the liquid is going to slosh. Anyone who would put a hot cup of coffee between their legs, in a car, is just not thinking!
posted by Laura H on 1-13-2011 at 11:45 am
I’ve always thought that if the coffee was hot enough to burn, and those burns required skin grafts, then the coffee was too hot.
But what’s funny/cruel, is that McDonald’s reaction is to increase the font size of the warning label, rather than to reduce the temperature of the coffee to a non-scalding level.
Here in Cleveland, there were several incidents of public buses running over pedestrians in cross walks. After the law suits, the Rapid Transit Authority’s reaction was to install speakers on all buses that emitted beeps and a recorded voice announcing “Warning! Bus is in motion. Please stand back.”
My point being, rather than increase the warning to the danger, why not just eliminate the danger? If the coffee’s hot enough to burn, cool it. If the bus drivers are running over pedestrians in cross walks, get new, better bus drivers.
But what do I know?
posted by TBV on 1-13-2011 at 11:47 am
I get both points of view. Common sense would tell us we will get some sort of adverse reaction to spilling hot coffee on ourselves and the way she chose to go about stirring in her sugar and cream wasn’t exactly smart. However, McD’s shouldn’t serve any beverage beyond a drinkable temperature. Even fresh brewed coffee from home at 140 degress can be too hot to drink.
If it were me and McD’s initially refused to cover the $20K I needed for my medical espenses, etc. I’d probably be so pissed I would go after them for more. That being said, I think she was more than 20% at fault…maybe 50 – 80%. She deserved some money, just maybe not as much.
posted by Katie Rose on 1-13-2011 at 11:57 am
Life is so much easier when we can assign unquestionable blame, and people tend to misrepresent and simplify situations that aren’t really that clear cut just so they can assign that blame. Especially in this case it’s so much easier to just claim grandma was greedy and stupid for not knowing coffee is hot, rather than logically go through the merits of the case.
McDonald’s served coffee that was purposefully overheated, hence customers received a products that behaved in a way different than what they would normally expect. McDonald’s had a good reason for doing this, and all would have been fine if they informed their customers of how the coffee was different. While she may have been careless with the coffee, she had no reason to suspect it would cause third degree burns (who honestly would?)
To the guy who asked if GM should be liable when he falls out a car while doing numerous stupid and illegal things: no, provided the car behaved the way any reasonable person would expect it to behave.
posted by Chris on 1-13-2011 at 12:17 pm
If she wasn’t elderly, I think we can assume the verdict would have turned out differently.
posted by Eric on 1-13-2011 at 12:31 pm
That final sentence was gold.
posted by Rachel O. on 1-13-2011 at 12:31 pm
Ethan Trex,
Could you please also do an article concerning the man who sued Lowe’s after he lost his leg trying to cut hedges with a self-propelled push lawnmower? Or is that also a myth?
posted by Joel on 1-13-2011 at 12:33 pm
What I think is weird about this whole thing is that, coffee when brewed properly should have a temperature of around 200 degrees. 140? That’s not even hot enough to make tea. The reason coffee brewed at home is so low in temp is due to the low wattage of home coffee makers. That’s actually a bad thing. High end coffee makers will brew the coffee around 200. So 180-190 being set to “enhance flavor”? Yeah, if you mean just brewing a proper cup.
posted by Marty on 1-13-2011 at 12:36 pm
Brew temperature is supposed to be with near boiling. Serving temperature is meant to be considerably lower.
Neither of that addresses my underlying assertion that McDonald’s coffee tastes terrible and the only hope you have of making it through a cup is to burn your tastebuds with the first disgusting sip.
posted by lex on 1-13-2011 at 12:42 pm
Before the incident, the Shriner’s Burn Institute (part of a charity hospital that treats children unable to pay) had treated enough burns from fast food and beverages that they had issued a warning to McDonalds and others that anything served over 140 degrees was a significant burn hazard. McDonalds ignored it.
posted by lmf3b on 1-13-2011 at 12:53 pm
What the article doesn’t mention that I heard from an attorney is that it burned her “lady parts”
posted by Joe Crucified on 1-13-2011 at 1:08 pm
Come on…Coffee is hot, don’t spill it or it will burn you! Isn’t this like someone who smokes when filling their gas tank and gets burned suing the match or lighter company? YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE!
posted by Steve on 1-13-2011 at 1:39 pm
Starbucks brews their coffee at 180 but don’t get any ideas people. . . they have a warning on their cups too.
posted by nancy pants on 1-13-2011 at 1:48 pm
It is amazing how many people commenting on this article lack enough basic reading comprehension skills to know that the coffee was not merely hot, it was intentionally hot and was a known source of burn danger.
So, tl;dr: McDonald’s knowingly made coffee so hot that it caused injuries, then denied that it was in any way their fault when people got burned, even though those people had no reason to suspect the coffee was any hotter than the coffee they would make at home.
Good lord.
posted by Nicole on 1-13-2011 at 1:57 pm
I didn’t think it was possible, but my opinion of this situation has changed. I used to think “stupid system, you shouldn’t be able to sue for being too stupid to do it right.” But now I think that the verdict was correct, it’s just the sentence that was wrong. I agree with John, in that McD’s should have owed a large sum of money to everyone; not the person who spilled coffee on herself.
posted by DYMongoose on 1-13-2011 at 2:00 pm
well now McDonalds puts the cream and sugar in for you.Whoever said that putting hot coffee between your legs to put sugar in it.Come on now..This country is sue crazy.If wasn’t hot enough she would prob.complain about that.Sorry she got burned but I believe it was her own fault and McDonalds should not have been blamed but only to pay for her medical.
posted by dianne on 1-13-2011 at 2:04 pm
and here I thought this would have something to do with Grand Theft Auto…
:p
posted by Wayne on 1-13-2011 at 2:09 pm
This was really, really interesting. I read the whole thing and I love knowing all the details of this.
But now, I honestly gotta say…
All I can think about is how much I want a Big ‘n’ Tasty. It’s been so long…
posted by Grobanite33 on 1-13-2011 at 2:20 pm
I’m glad to see this article. I’ve been defending this woman for years because I knew McDonalds had already been made aware of other instances of people being burned by their coffee and had ignored it. The award of punitive damages against McDonalds was determined by the jury and the woman certainly never saw that much (as you pointed out in the article). McDonalds was just too stubborn to fix the problem.
posted by Kathy on 1-13-2011 at 2:28 pm
McDonald’s Fault lies in the fact that not only that they served coffee hot enough to burn skin…
They knew that people in the normal use of their product (putting cream or sugar in or while driving) would burn themselves (sometimes severely).
It’s like someone walking up the stairs to a business. One of the steps has an obvious crack in it and it could break, and the business knows about it but refuses to fix the step. Someone, who is walking up the step notices the crack but steps on the step anyways. Is the business at fault? Of course.
Ms. Liebeck not only burned her lap, but it burned her genitals.
posted by Kelly Mc on 1-13-2011 at 2:36 pm
The main reason that McDonald’s had to pay up was not that the coffee was too hot, McDonald’s had known about this risk and prior incidents before. Inside McDonald’s, there were actually memos going back and forth about the dangers of scalding coffee, which they were going to fix, but somewhere along the line, they didn’t. That’s pretty major. It’s like a company manufacturing a product that they know has flaws.
posted by Dante Alset on 1-13-2011 at 2:50 pm
@Tim
No, but you can sue GM for intentionally making a car that doesn’t have brakes (a flaw). McDonald’s knew that its coffee was dangerous through internal review and outside opinion, yet they didn’t change anything despite discussing it multiple times. McDonald’s intentionally sold a flawed product.
posted by Dante Alset on 1-13-2011 at 2:54 pm
So the suit was over the coffee being too hot… I’m more baffled by the fact that McDonald’s didn’t put in the cream and sugar before handing her the coffee, like they do now. If they had, she wouldn’t have had to take the lid off in the car in order to put in the cream and sugar, and therefore she wouldn’t have spilled hot coffee all over herself.
posted by Laura on 1-13-2011 at 2:54 pm
@ Dante, I have to side with Tim on this one, the flaw in GM’s product is that GM failed to prevent all possibility of the owner using their product in such a manner.
posted by Wayne on 1-13-2011 at 3:09 pm
@ Kelly Mc—the difference in your analogy is the step is not something a person would expect to be broken, coffee is something a two year old knows is boiling hot.
posted by Wayne on 1-13-2011 at 3:11 pm
‘My point being, rather than increase the warning to the danger, why not just eliminate the danger? If the coffee’s hot enough to burn, cool it. If the bus drivers are running over pedestrians in cross walks, get new, better bus drivers.’
@TBV
No the point being, whether or not there is a warning label, a caution sign, an auditory warning or set of instructions, I know if I do anything (driving, eating, walking, typing, sleeping, etc, etc), it comes with some inherit risk. I’ve burned my mouth plenty of times on hot coffee, I curse myself not the barista. I have ran in front of buses and came pretty damn close to be run over, I am the one who ran in front of the bus, it’s my damn fault and not the poor bus driver who should be at fault for me consciously deciding to walk in front of a bus.
In all these scenarios including the Liebeck case, knowingly performing any action should in turn be the ability to accept the inherit risk. If I put anything (temperature irrelevant everybody!) in my lap, in a moving vehicle for my own convenience, it’s MY fault! I wouldn’t expect McDonald’s, Starbuck’s or anything small business coffee to pay my dry cleaning if I was holding the cup in my pocket or carpet cleaning if I sat the cup in the floor, why is it reasonable to assume a beverage (hot or cold) is safe and secure between my knees and inches from my private parts in a moving car?
The point of all this rambling is that whether or not McDonald’s puts a warning on its cup, puts cold or scalding hot liquid in it’s cup, serves it in a mug, a cup with lid a wine glass or a hat is all not the point. The point is as a reasonable consumer (or just plain human being), what I do with it once it transfers possession to me is my fault and mine alone.
I know there are plenty of situations that warrant justifiable lawsuits but in this case and after reading this evidence, guilt falls all on the plantiff. If McDonald’s is guilty of anything it’s assuming the consumer has any common sense.
posted by rccola20 on 1-13-2011 at 3:13 pm
@ Nichole Maybe you should read some of the other comments. Apparently Mc Donalds is not the only company that brews coffee at “dangerously” high temps. I agree that people do not seem to have a sense of personal responsibility for their own actions and seem to feel that they are owed something because they were injured doing something that a little common sense would tell you is dangerous. i have gotten coffee at many locations while travelling and have always taken the time to have the cup on a solid surface before trying to open the cup to add cream and sugar. My Mom did not raise a fool and as she always said if you are going to be stupid you had better be tough.
posted by Richard Blair on 1-13-2011 at 3:30 pm
I hate how hot fast food coffee is. I have to let it cool for at least 15 minutes before it’s drinkable.
posted by Zach on 1-13-2011 at 3:43 pm
I have spilt coffee on my self many times in my life and I have never needed skin grafts. You might be a little red, perhaps blister, but no reasonable person should expect skin grafts. If you knew there was such a risk, you would treat coffee like it was acid. Brewing temperature is not the same as serving temperature. I bake stuff in the oven at 425 degrees, but I don’t expect someone to eat it at that temperature.
I agree there are a lot of rediculous laws suits in this country, but I don’t think this is one of them. If it was an honest mistake on McDonald’s part, I might side with them, but they knew a lot of people were getting burned.
Also, be sure that if this happened because the coffee machine malfunctobed, you can be sure McDonalds would have filed their own law suit.
posted by Morris on 1-13-2011 at 3:50 pm
Thank you for finally mentioning that Marty…
Bunn coffee makers, like the ones in every restaurant and most every office in the country, brew their coffee at 200 degrees. It isn’t irresponsible, it is the proper temperature that coffee is to be prepared.
McDonalds got sued for one reason, they were being dicks.
When a nice old lady asks for enough money to cover her medical expenses, you do so. If you believe she was wrong, you don’t offer her $800.
We heard some details about this case when I was in college, but the didn’t mention the temperature it was being brewed at, just that it was intentionally too hot. One reason was so that people wouldn’t get refills right away.
Not too sure what to think about this one…I change my mind every time I hear it.
posted by graham on 1-13-2011 at 4:57 pm
@rccola20–
note how we all filter facts through our own personal lens. you state that she was putting in the cream & sugar while the car was moving. where did you get that info? the article specifically states her grandson pulled the car forward AND PARKED.
it’s good to hear you take personal responsibility for your actions, especially when you do stupid things like walk in front of a bus. if you do that, no one should think you have a right to recovery from your own negligence. and you wouldn’t. there’s a legal concept – used all the time – called summary judgment that allows for frivolous lawsuits to be dismissed. it happens all the time.
but, how would you feel if you were severely injured or disfigured by someone else’s negligence? the texting driver who plows into your car & renders you a paraplegic? do you have personal responsibility for that? or does the stupid driver? what should you be allowed to recover? just your medical bills? the texting driver goes on to live a full life, but you’re in a wheelchair. oh well? but, i guess your concept of personal responsibility means it will never happen to you, right?
posted by Patty on 1-13-2011 at 5:15 pm
Something not pointed out above, that I could see, that was given in testimony, was that at 180-190 degrees, full thickness (3rd degree burns) like Stella’s can occur within SECONDS (3-5). Decrease the temp to 140 or so, and you increase the scald time dramatically (I believe 15-20 seconds).
posted by Patrick on 1-13-2011 at 5:17 pm
I still don’t get it, and I never will. Coffee is a hot beverage. Therefore, be careful with it, dumbass!
posted by MH on 1-13-2011 at 5:42 pm
Folks, Ms. Liebeck was wearing sweat pants, so the hot liquid stayed in contact with her skin for 20+ seconds.
McDonald’s brewed the coffee as hot as they did because it allowed them to get more cups of coffee from the beans.
The original damages award (not the punitive damages) was reduced by 20% due to Ms. Liebeck’s contributing to the injury.
posted by catullus on 1-13-2011 at 6:10 pm
@ Patty
Practice what you preach!
I never said anything about her putting anything in the coffee, I state she had the coffee between her legs. Where did you get cream & sugar from my response? For goodness sake, I’m a grown man and would feel awkward holding anything drink between my legs for fear of spilling it. If I’m 79 years old, I’d still be able to realize this position could end in a spill (coffee, water, soda, whatever).
And yes I can say a moving vehicle because I meant it in a generalization, if he ‘parked’ after moving forward in a drive-thru then he put the car in park and still had the car running. If so, then the car could jerk or move forward without warning to the passenger.
Common sense is common sense! I’m with MH -
‘I still don’t get it, and I never will. Coffee is a hot beverage. Therefore, be careful with it, dumbass!’
posted by rccola20 on 1-13-2011 at 6:20 pm
To those saying coffee is hot and she should have known that- have you ever spilled coffee on yourself and required an 8-day hospital stay and skin grafts? I’m a klutz and injure myself rather frequently. I’ve spilled coffee on myself, including my lap (I was not in a car though, I was standing at a counter and knocked the coffee directly onto my nether regions). I didn’t require medical attention. If the coffee was hot enough to cause an injury that bad, why shouldn’t she try to recoup her medical expenses? Hot coffee should not cause injuries that extensive.
posted by Kate on 1-13-2011 at 8:55 pm
I want to know what made her think: “Oh no, I’ve spilled coffee on myself, I shall sue McDonalds.” If I did this, I’d think something along the lines of: “Oh no, I’ve spilled coffee on myself, I’m a first-class moron.” It was a probably one of those ambulance chasers that give lawyers a bad name.
posted by Ben H. on 1-13-2011 at 11:12 pm
I used to work for Dunkin Donuts, ended up spilling fresh coffee on myself many times, never got burned. I mean, it’s just something that shouldn’t happen. You wouldn’t HAND some one a plate that’s been in the oven and has reached 300 degrees, then blame them for getting burned because they should have known the plate was hot?
posted by Sarah on 1-13-2011 at 11:39 pm
For the life of me, I cannot understand what the point of having a jury trial is when the judge can simply overrule the jury and lower damages or even reverse the verdict. I can understand making these changes after an appeal, but not the way the judge can do whatever he chooses regardless of the jurors decision.
posted by wumpus on 1-14-2011 at 12:24 am
I read somewhere that when soccer moms buy a car, the number one question is whether it has cup holders. Some make fun of this, but my husband bought me (an all-day coffee drinker) a minivan without cup holders. Have you ever tried to deal with hot coffee in a vehicle without proper equipment? He ended up building a console with a proper place to keep coffee out of my lap.
posted by Miss Cellania on 1-14-2011 at 5:32 am
I’d say, people like coffee because of three qualities: 1) taste & smell, 2) it’s hot and there’s 3) caffeine in it. Well, let’s leave out “3″ here… FF-coffee actually doesn’t taste or smell too good, so the only way to sell it is to make it as d**n hot as possible! Whenever I drink a cup of coffee from one of these “restaurants” I – actually – can’t say whether it’s coffee or black tea.
posted by H. on 1-14-2011 at 6:12 am
Has anyone ever ordered tea at any coffee place? The water temp is above boiling and even with two of those take-out cups it’s too hot to hold or drink for at least 20 minutes. I don’t understand why they serve any drink at undrinkably hot temperatures.
posted by Jennifer on 1-14-2011 at 8:57 am
Every time I go to Starbucks and forget to ask for my latte “extra hot” I curse that stupid woman who sued McDonald’s. Coffee does taste much better at 180 and I resent having to remember to ask to have it served at the correct temp. I do feel bad that she was so severly burned but she should had enough common sense to know you don’t balance a filmsy paper cup on your lap in the first place.
posted by Kani on 1-14-2011 at 9:13 am
What I want to know is, why didn’t anyone think to sue the company that made the sweatpants? After all, they absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin, contributing to the severity of her injuries. She should have be warned! ;)
posted by ERF on 1-14-2011 at 9:41 am
I used to be one of those who jumped on the frivilous lawsuit band wagon, until I studied law. Now when people bring this up, I always mention WHERE she got her 3rd degree burns.
She shouldn’t have put the cup in her lap, but where else was she to put it? I’m assuming if there was a cup holder available she’d use it.
Then again, when my son and I get drinks from someplace, even though he has a cup holder, he puts it on his lap.
posted by MetalRose on 1-14-2011 at 10:03 am
I realise that they look like they are accepting blame or trying to make the customer “go away” by offering a settlement but the real reason companies do it is to avoid (a) the settlement terms and $-amount from being disclosed and (b) from the case becoming a precedent for future cases. It’s actually very smart and it’s being done everyday…
posted by ab on 1-14-2011 at 12:04 pm
Lol @ Tim.
posted by J on 1-14-2011 at 1:49 pm
This was a time when cup holders were not standard in cars. Thank you for this post.
posted by Cynthia on 1-14-2011 at 1:55 pm
The lawyer that spoke to my HU class said it was a rare treat for her to get out of the home and so she didn’t say anything to the grandson and that made the situation worse.
posted by Mary on 1-14-2011 at 2:39 pm
t seems clear that McDonalds was to blame for serving coffee at a temperature they knew had burned people before.
It also seems clear that the plaintiff was to blame for holding scalding hot coffee between her knees, in a car.
And it also seems clear the jury is to blame most of all for assigning 80% blame to McDonalds and awarding a ridiculous judgment out of any proportion to the injury sustained.
posted by Jeffos on 1-14-2011 at 4:00 pm
What the hell is wrong with the world? She spilled the coffee onto herself. It’s like saying I can sue a store that sold me salt for hundreds of thousands of dollars if dumped a cup of salt on an open wound and call that salt “defective”. After the coffee changes hands from Mcdonalds to the customer, it is his or her responsibility from there. im buying sixteen million ladders and living on the moon to get away from the idiots who live on this rock.
posted by Fuzzball on 1-14-2011 at 4:30 pm
@tim
Probably, if you find a good enough lawyer.
posted by PIff on 1-14-2011 at 4:51 pm
the real “whopper”? oh mental_floss, you always get me.
posted by george herz on 1-14-2011 at 4:53 pm
Wayne, Coffee should never be “boiling hot” McDonald’s made it “boiling hot” on purpose.
My analogy works. People should know that a broken step could fall through (as she should have known that coffee was hot and thus should have been more careful). However the company knew that they had a dangerous product and still proceeded to serve it disregarding their duty of care allowing the incident to happen.
I don’t think you know the law very well.
posted by Kelly Mc on 1-14-2011 at 5:36 pm
@Ben H. Maybe if the coffee was hot enough to fuse your labia (or scrotum, or what have you) to your leg when you spilled it on yourself, you might think otherwise.
When I saw this story had dozens of comments, I knew the internet had come out of the woodwork to express the misinformed opinions that this article was put here to dispell. This is not an archetype of frivolous lawsuits, but a case of a person’s mistake made hundreds of times worse by a company’s criminal negligence.
posted by Stefan on 1-14-2011 at 6:37 pm
I was in Law School shortly after this case was published in the state reporters (published legal cases used for legal research). Because this was a landmark case, all of the court testimony was published including McDonald’s physicians. The media implied that the coffee was spilled on her lap. Actually it was spilled on her genitalia. Her polyester slacks melted on her genitalia due to the temperature of the coffee. In order to begin treatment, her slacks had to be peeled off of her in the ER. That is why she required skin grafts to the injured area.
If this happened to a man; would it be so funny? I don’t think so.
posted by Dianne P on 1-14-2011 at 6:41 pm
I still don’t understand where you can say the coffee was too hot. Says who? Just because it can burn someone doesn’t make it the wrong temperature. As many people have pointed out, they were serving it at the CORRECT temperature.
There are many things that are hot and are supposed to be hot and can burn you. You don’t lower the temperature.
It doesn’t matter where she got burned. She improperly used the product that was served as it should be. Her fault.
Now – the lid thing — that could be a different story. If the lid is designed so you can’t remove it without spilling the hot coffee – that might be the problem.
She needed skin grafts not because the coffee was too hot but because she spilled hot coffee in her lap.
posted by Karen on 1-14-2011 at 9:36 pm
I can only conclude that many of the commenters, and the authors of the article, hate coffee and hate coffee drinkers.
Coffee served at 140°? That is just barbaric!
ANSI standard cm-1-1986:
On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170° F and 205° F
posted by Coffeeaddict on 1-15-2011 at 12:44 am
Okay. I’m guilty of putting a cup between my knees, same as anyone (foolish, it seems) but what amazes me is how nonchalant her immediate family was. She’s close to eighty, for crying out loud. She’s trying to peel the lid off a hot cup of coffee. Her grandson did what? Sit on his hands? How much of this could have been avoided if he’d offered to help his grandmother? Let’s face it, her coordination couldn’t have been that great, and this stupid young man just sits there and watches her arthritic, probably clawed hands try to peel the lid off of what he must have known (he was the driver, wasn’t he?) was a very hot cup of coffee.
If she had anything left over after she was awarded money, just think; it went to her negligent asshole grandson.
…Justice?
posted by Whopper Indeed on 1-15-2011 at 3:15 am
Number one: Why did she have in in her or over her lap? Number two If you could feel the heat from the coffee through the cup that should have been an indication to be careful. Number three at 79 what income did she loss. Number four at 79 was surgery a nesassary or a vanity thing.
Had I been on the jury she would be paying the court. For wasting time or her own carelessness. Sounds to me that whoever wrote this piece was another bleeding heart.
posted by james on 1-15-2011 at 9:14 am
Yes you need to be careful with hot coffee. But I remember reading a description – namely that adding the sugar made the coffee boil up out of the up.
The fact that the cups used weren’t suitable for the temperature also appears to be missed by a great many people.
The idea that the coffee was so hot that it would still be hot 20 minutes later for their “to go” customers seems to demonstrate that that’s far too hot to drink immediately. Which is what it should be sold for!
posted by KathM on 1-15-2011 at 12:24 pm
This whole incident started Randy’s Stella Awards website;
http://www.stellaawards.com/
posted by Jodie on 1-17-2011 at 1:42 pm
You forgot the best part!
When Liebeck’s lawyer mentioned that their client needed the skin grafts to replace her labia, McDonald’s lawyers tried to argue that an 83-year old woman didn’t need labia anymore.
*THAT*, more than any other factor, is why the jury slapped McDonald’s silly.
posted by IonOtter on 1-19-2011 at 1:07 am
As far as people saying she got too much, compensatory damages are different than punitive damages.
Compensatory damages are what she gets for her injuries (medical bills, pain and suffering, etc.).
Punitive damages have a different purpose, to get the defendant to change its behavior. Sometimes this money doesn’t go to the plaintiff, but rather to the state or somewhere else.
If McDonalds simply had to pay her medical bills, etc., it wouldn’t have hurt them enough to change their behavior (lowering temperature of coffee, improving cups, better warnings, etc.). If you make McDonalds pay two days worth of their national coffee sales, that’ll get their attention and get them to change their behavior.
posted by Justin on 1-19-2011 at 7:02 pm
Those where her actions.
Her Grandson should not have ordered coffee for her or helped her at her feeble age. Who doesn’t know Coffee is Hot and too be careful.
posted by EF on 1-25-2011 at 7:14 pm
coffee is hot nuff said dumbo
posted by luke on 1-25-2011 at 8:33 pm
The lids are made to come off hard so they will not spill while drinking (another potential lawsuit). Thus, you must set the cup on a hard surface to keep it stable while removing the lid. The coffee must be brewed hot for the same reason food must be cooked and kept at certain temps to keep from spoilage (menus now say undercooked eggs…). Where I work, in ski country, people complain about snow in the parking lot, even while it is snowing! Isn’t the snow the reason why you are here? And, more importantly, can’t you see the snow falling? A bit of caution, and common sense, is required under these conditions, be it coffee or parking lots.
posted by Walter Davis on 1-25-2011 at 10:48 pm
Somehow the visual of a rebuilt 83 year old labia is not a place I wish to go. The idea of “statistically insignificant” cuts no ice either when it is your p***y that’s getting the Juan Valdez treatment. That being said, I am thinking that the S**t happens rule applies, and that someone with the wisdom of an octogenarian, unless suffering dementia, might have thought better about perching very hot water over her little Georgia O’Keefe. If suffering dementia, liability should default to her caregivers. In trial law, the gamble is to get as high a liability percentage as possible. If a vendor is judged as 10% liable and the suit is big enough, that 10 % can amount to huge bucks, mostly for the attorneys.
posted by Samuel on 1-25-2011 at 10:51 pm
I remember hearing about the case in ’94 and couldn’t believe that a 79 year old woman could receive that much money for spilling hot coffee on herself. At her age she knows coffee is hot and to be careful not to spill it on herself.
The media didn’t mention that she had originally only asked for $20K to cover medical expenses and lost wages but McDonalds refused to negotiate. Back then the media left out a lot of details.
While McDonalds was partly to blame for the lady’s burns, awarding large settlements won’t insure the defendant will change/correct the problem or that someone else won’t get hurt. McDonalds changes the warning on their cups because of the media coverage of the case not the settlement amount. The jury should have required McDonalds to remove the danger by lowering the temp and warn customers that the coffee is hot. (people are stupid they need to be warned about dangers now).
I agree with John that the punitive damages should have gone to a worthy cause (like a burn hospital) not the old lady who burned herself. However she did deserve compensation for her injuries since McDonalds knew its coffee was being served too hot.
People are too quick to blame someone else for their mistakes and use this lawsuit to justify suing a large company or worse hurt themselves on purpose so they can sue in hopes of getting rich.
Lawsuits are necessary in a lot of cases they are the only way to make some people/companies take responsibility for their actions. However large awards only benefit the plaintiff and their lawyers. Companies pass the cost on to their customers. In some cases they use the payment of large awards to justify not changing saying they cannot afford to make the changes.
Companies and individuals need to start taking responsibility for their actions not blame others. Judges and Juries need to make sure the award/punishment causes the guilty party to change not just make the plaintiff rich.
Don’t be a greedy dumbass!
posted by Robin on 1-26-2011 at 12:54 am
I agree that McDonald’s should have to pay some, but personally i feel they should not have to have paid as much as they did. She was the one who held the coffee between her own legs. Even if it had been at 140, home brewing temp. With the sweat pants she was wearing, which held more of the coffee in contact with her skin longer, she would have burned in a few minutes causing severe injuries.
Now i do feel McDonald’s need to be made to improve their cups, warning labels and maybe even brewing temperatures. Yet paying such a huge sum that the court would have awarded her was ridiculous.
posted by Steve on 1-26-2011 at 1:08 am
I have been an attorney for 36 years and all of your comments simply remind me how great it is to have a jury of our peers decide disputes like this one between private citizens and/or private companies. I bet the jury that had the responsibility of deciding this case discussed the issues much like all of you. Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, you should thank your lucky stars that we live in a country where Ms Liebeck and McDonalds could get a fair hearing by folks like you all to decide the “justice” of the case. The fact that you all have different views of the case clearly shows that the case was not “frivilous” as it is often depicted by the ill-informed.
posted by Bruce on 1-27-2011 at 5:20 pm
People do not take responsibility for their actions. It’s a sad reminder that a jury of your piers normally consists of the unemployed, seniors and college students. Not necessarily the most intelligent people making a decision such in a case like this. But attorneys love it as they can get higher awards for their clients which in turn increases their fees. Unfortunately, we all pay for it in terms of higher insurance prices and prices in general.
posted by mark silvers on 2-4-2011 at 5:39 pm
Glad you posted this. I spoke to a USA lawyer years ago who told me the whole story of this case and I was amazed that the facts never got passed on, and the whole thing was treated as an excuse to sneer at this lady (and Americans in general).
better late than never I suppose. ;)
posted by JJ on 3-14-2011 at 4:16 am
It’s also worth mentioning that the older you get, the worse a burn impacts you. I read an article once about burns to the elderly, and it states an approximate formula for surviving a burn:
%Chance of surviving = 100 – Age – %Skin burned
So in this woman’s case:
100 – 79 – 6 = Only a 15% chance of surviving!
posted by Tom Rankin on 4-14-2011 at 12:02 pm
800 customer complaints regarding burns. I wonder how many internal complaints they had. I wonder how many minimum wage teenagers got 3rd degree burns. I worked in a breakfast restaurant and we served a lot of coffee and I spilt my fair share on myself and I’ve never gotten a 3rd degree burn. Yeah the coffee is really hot when it comes out of the machine but then it cools off in the pot and again when you pour it in the cup. Of course we weren’t serving coffee to be consumed 20 minutes later but never hard something to a customer so hot it melts skin. I think that’s a pretty safe rule.
I got a face full of ice cold soda once when the guy at the drive through let go before I had a grip on the cup. I wonder what a face full of 190 degree coffee would have done to my vision. Some how I don’t think melted contacts are the equivalent of laser surgery.
Also if the jury hadn’t awarded punitive damages do you think anything would have changed? Large businesses don’t make changes unless it’s literally more expensive not to.
posted by Angela on 5-10-2011 at 5:58 pm
I’m surprised that there has been no mention of the difficulty getting the cup *top* off or open!
Even just opening the little flap over the drinking hole can cause the whole thing to spill!
posted by bh on 5-16-2011 at 6:18 pm
One minor correction. Home coffee makers work by bringing the water to boiling (212F at sea level) which forces the hot water up the tubing to the grounds basket.
Although it cools off somewhat quickly, the fresh coffee temperature will be between 165 and 185 degrees F. (185-195 being the optimum temperature to brew coffee depending on who you ask.) You can check this for yourself with a simple cooking thermometer in the carafe as it brews.
After that, the hot plate under the carafe will keep the temp between 150 and 175. If your coffee is 140 degrees when it brews, you coffee maker is malfunctioning.
posted by Steve P on 5-19-2011 at 6:54 pm
What a joke. Why does someone always have to pay when someone gets hurt? The clumsy old lady couldn’t open her coffee without slopping it all over herself and it becomes a vehicle for greedy lawyers and a selfish old lady to get rich and a dopey mental floss writer to blather…..
posted by Ed Palinurus on 5-24-2011 at 7:43 am
Did McDonald’s tell her to put the coffee between her knees and try to pull the lid off while driving?
This is still someone getting money for being stupid. I call it the “Litigation Lottery”. Do something dumb, then sue the other party for not giving you a lesson in common sense and outlining all the possible ways hot coffee can hurt you.
The physics regarding the temperature of the drink was also massively simplified making it sound like McDonald’s d9id something wrong.
posted by Frank Mondana on 5-31-2011 at 2:53 pm
The key sentence in the article is the one that says the punitive damages equalled two days’ worth of coffee revenues for McDonalds.
To get the attention of a company the size of McDonalds, you HAVE to charge them millions. Anything less and they will shrug it off.
posted by Karl Weber on 6-24-2011 at 6:07 pm
Even at 140 degrees temperature, I would never try to open hot contents between my legs and definitely not allow my 80 year old grandma do it.
I am sorry for what happened to the lady, but she should have been cautious.
This lawsuit did raise a doubt about the American jury and it also was followed by silly law suits hoping to earn big money.
posted by Mandy on 8-8-2011 at 1:50 pm
I’ve considered they way people perceive this case as a sort of intelligence litmus test. The people who support McDonald’s invariably get the facts to the case wrong and grossly exaggerate the details of the case.
The problem from McDonald’s standpoint (aside from their obvious negligence) stemmed from their supremely arrogant attitude. The same liability that cost them tons of bad publicity in the UK when they sued a handful of private citizens for slander. The same attitude that caused them to shutter a prosperous store and reopen it one block away to avoid unionization.
posted by Jim on 9-16-2011 at 12:59 am
Wowwwwwww…..this article didn’t even BEGIN to change my mind….still think the granny was at fault and the attorneys went for cash because the system allows it. It is a crime that people can recover for their own negligence.
posted by bamajs on 11-29-2011 at 12:18 am
I don’t know about New Mexico, but here in California a large portion (at least half) of the punitive damages goes to the state and not to the plaintiff.
posted by Discordia on 11-29-2011 at 5:49 pm
ITS COFFEE!!! OF COURSE ITS EFFING HOT! or else it would be an friggen ICED COFFEE!!! please note the use of the F-word. (Freedumb of speech my ass) the most McD should have done was pay for hospital bills, and some pain and suffering. not more than 200k on top of the hospital bills and all treatments relating specifically to the said injury area/wound. including unforeseen time after the settlement is awarded. which goes to point out the next major flaw in this country is our health care system. profits are great. but would even more profits come from actually healing someone rather than killing them and cashing on the life Ins policy they might have had.
posted by Dano wdsal on 12-1-2011 at 2:24 am
All you guys with your flawed analogies. You are among the 4% of society who: have no empathy (that is, you are unable to put yourself in the place of another person).
And, you’re not good ‘critical thinkers’ nor ‘analytical thinkers’ either. You’re sheep who repeat what your puppet masters tell you.
Let’s do a little lesson in Critical Thinking and Empathy:
1. Do accidents happen? (Hint — yes, they do!)
2. Did McD’s know their coffee was scalding (Hint — yes they did — they got over 1 complaint or settlement PER WEEK) over the previous 10 years!)
3. Did McD’s choose to lower the temp by, say 10 degrees — the temp other places served it? (Hint – No, McD’s didn’t do that, even with 700 previous complaints!)
4. Did McD’s consult experts on how fast 190 degree coffee could scald a person? (Hint – McD’s own testomony = No, they didn’t do that!)
5. Did I know for years that McD’s coffee was sooooo hot it was undrinkable, and wondered why McD’s — and only McD’s did that? (Hint – yes, I knew it was waaaay tooo hot — didin’t you?)
6. Did McD’s finally lower the temp to similar to other restaurants after this? (Hint – yes they did!)
7. Could McD’s have avoided this if they just paid her the medical bills she wanted in the first place? (Hint – yes, this all could have been avoided — if McD’s paid her bills — or did something about it to prevent it in the first place. NOTE: the jury DID say the old lady was 20% at fault. McD’s said they knew it was hotter than anywhere else, and said they didn’t care because 700 cases was ‘statistically insignificant’ (unless it’s YOU who has their crotch burned off!!!)
Now — here’s the bonus question — the one on Empathy:
8. If your son or daughter or grandma got their crotch scalded bad enough to put them in the hospital for 8 days — and painful surgery — when McD’s knew their coffee was way too hot – and should have known that lowering it to ‘normal’ would have prevented such scalding — if that was your son or daughter or grandma — do you just shrug and dig $20,000 out of your pocket — and look at the scars that will change their lives forever — and just shrug it off — ‘my kid or grandma was soo stupid – they deserve this maiming – and I deserve to be out $20K for having such stupid relatives.
Hey — get a clue. McD’s knew their coffee was waaaay hotter than anyone elses — they didn’t care — and they should be smart enough (like YOU should be) — that accidents can happen.
posted by Steve G. on 1-22-2012 at 1:06 am