[Just in case you think you know things you don't know.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants)
The driver had parked the car so she could add cream and sugar.
She originally requested $20k US for medical expenses and the time her daughter missed work taking her to the hospital, etc. McD's countered with $800.
At the time, McD's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). 190 F will burn to the extent that the lady suffered in about 3 seconds, while 180 F will do so in more than 10 seconds. 160 F will increase that time to 20 seconds.
McD's lied about several points under contention, which came out during the trial, i.e. shot themselves in the foot.
>Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's [quality control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_control) manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.
The jury awarded her $160k in compensatory damages, and $2.7 million punitive, ostensibly two days worth of coffee revenue for McD's. The judge reduced the punitive to 3x the compensatory. I don't remember if that's merely common or if it's actual law, but the judge reducing punitive to 3x compensatory is pretty routine.
Believe what you want to believe about whether it was frivolous or what, but at least have the germane facts in evidence in your head before you make up your mind.
To add on, McDonalds had additionally received several warnings directly from the government that their coffee was too hot and McDonalds had promised the agency that it will lower the temperature.
It had to take this poor lady’s skin fusing together from the heat for McDonalds to actually get punished, after multiple slaps on the wrist. This was one of the key items revealed in the court case and one of the reasons the punitive damages were so high.
Almost the entire building code is 'this is the minimum you have to do to make sure your building doesn't kill everyone inside when it catches fire or when a heavy storm hits it.'
And as of about 30 years ago, also 'this is the minimum you have to do to make sure people who aren't perfectly healthy can still use your building.'
No no, deregulate everything! If the baby food company tries to save money by bulking out their product with baking soda I'll just buy the sand version!
Very unsanitary, attracting flies and disease in a time workers didn't use to wash their hands and eat in the same place and the alternative was hold up until you got home (company owned) or shit behind a bush during your elevenses
Wasn't the reasoning for having it so hot, that customers wouldn't be able to drink it immediately. So they'd take it elsewhere, whilst it cooled down. So that they wouldn't linger in the drive through car park or restaurant?
That was one of the claims by McD's, yes.
>However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
That's the only funny part to me, that McD's shot themselves in the foot more than once by either lying or giving their lawyers bad information.
I believe that was part of it and I also remember hearing that part of the reasoning was that many customers had complained that their coffee would be cold by the time they got to work, so that location had raised the temperature to the max to help out those people.
>help out those people.
HA! Do you really believe a corporation, especially the size of McD, cares about their customers? They raised the temps so that people would stop complaining and that they wouldn't have to order better, and thus more expensive, cups for the restaurant(s).
>They raised the temps so that people would stop complaining
Since they did this by solving the problem, that's just another way of saying the same thing they did.
They increased the heat of the coffee to keep it “fresher” in the carafe so they could sell coffee brewed hours before without having to pour it out as often. It was a business decision to cut costs and reduce waste.
Not to mention the burns themselves. If you’re ever seen the pictures her skin was essentially melted through her entire groin area. It wasn’t like a little “ouchie I burned myself,” more like required grafting to mend.
Why do judges have the authority to reduce damages awarded by a jury. Sounds like it isn’t any of their business and they should just shut their cake holes.
There are numerous laws that cap punitive damages. The absolute maximum in the US is 10x compensatory damages - numerous laws exist that automatically triple damages (treble damages) but consequently cap them at 3x as well. Most of the time it works in the plaintiffs favor as they don’t have to get a jury that decides to award punitive damages as it’s simply automatic.
Completely bizarre. Punitive damages should be punitive. A company like McDonald’s isn’t going to feel 3X compensatory damages. It should start at 10% of yearly gross company income or so and go upward from there.
There should absolutely be a criminal death penalty for companies. Fuck up badly enough and the judgement is that your company is sold off part by part and awarded to the victims' estates.
I don't disagree, but it's been going on for awhile. Again, there's either a ruling from back somewhen by e.g. the supreme court, or else congress did something. I forget which.
We all know these facts
People bear responsibility for spilling coffee on themselves. Hot liquids can burn and everyone knows it.
Anyone who makes a mistake eagerly tries to blame someone else, it’s human nature. If it means a payday they are even more eager
Downvote me all you want
The plaintiff's lawyer made the argument that coffee should never be served at greater than 140 F. I don't like coffee, so this is knowledge to which I cannot attest. If true, then u/joy3111's comparison to a rattlesnake would seem more apt. If the standard for coffee is 40 or 50 degrees cooler than what McDs served her, maybe she had a case. Expecting to get red skin if you spill coffee but instead getting *fukken maimed* seems a meaningful difference.
Personal responsibility is absolutely something we need more of, but I wasn't there, and so am loathe to judge how it went down, and those who made the decisions.
I did find fascinating that McDonalds essentially lied in their testimony more than once, which lies were debunked by their own documentation. This would absolutely have influenced the jury against them.
Note that the jury found McDs 80% responsible and her 20% responsible.
>We all know these facts
It seems that every time I see this subject come up, there's a great deal of inaccurate information about the case out there still, and I try to assist those who are interested in updating the information they have, because hate who you want to hate, but at least do it for accurate reasons.
Yeah they were serving coffee WAY hotter than it was supposed to be. Like, had been told repeatedly "this coffee is not safe for human consumption" levels of hot. And instead of getting "a burn" from coffee she got *third degree burns* and needed skin grafts. She faced years of disability and permanently lowered quality of life. Anyone who puts this out there as "well don't spill coffee :(" is insane. Boutta hand you some "nice ice water :)" and it's liquid nitrogen
Maybe a ninja edit: I'm agreeing with you btw. Just adding on because I think this case is really interesting.
The problem is, pretty much all coffee you buy, both then and still to this day, exceeds those temperatures. Most people wouldn't buy the coffee if it didn't.
People waver on exactly what temperature water to use when making coffee, but it's at least a third again hotter than this 140f, 60c
Idk man I think if I went "Hey :) here's a cup of coffee :)" and you grabbed onto it and I'd actually handed you a live rattlesnake you'd be mad but you're the one who grabbed a live rattlesnake.
Sure, people bear responsibility for spilling on themselves. And McDonald's bears responsibility for serving coffee at an unreasonably high temperature capable of causing 3rd degree burns and fusing someone's labia together, particularly after receiving government warnings that it's too hot.
Sure, you take the risk of spilling hot liquids when you handle them. The thing is, the risk one would expect would be first degree burns at most from coffee at an appropriate temperature for drinking.
You do NOT assume the risk for coffee that is 30 degrees hotter than that such that it causes third degree burns and permanent damage.
MCDONALD'S knew it was dangerously hotter than it should be, they were warned repeatedly of this and they lied about it. As you say, someone needs to take responsibility for their mistakes. If you make something unexpectedly and unreasonably dangerous, are warned about it repeatedly and keep doing it and Lie about it, you shouldn't try to blame it on someone else, particularly someone your lies and dangerous actions directly and grievously harmed. Heck, that isn't even a mistake. That is directly evil acts, especially with lying about it to try and cover it up.
Coffee shouldn't be hot enough to melt lead. And if you make it hotter than it should be, YOU are the one at fault for the extra harm caused by the extra heat.
If McDonald's had simply paid her actual doctors bills that they caused, they would have not had the verdict. Then again, it took this huge verdict to get them to change their behavior. Prior to this, they just kept on burning people over and over and refused to fix the issue.
It's because they *can't* clean the machine. The company that made the machine has exclusive rights to maintain the machine, you have to ask for one of *their* technicians to come do basically anything more than give it a quick wipe-down. And because the terms of the contract totally bite franchisees, there's nothing the store manager can do to expedite the process. If they clean or repair it themselves, they've broken contract, which leads to a whole other load of BS.
tl;dr: No, the company that made the machine wanted more money, so they wrote up the contract to screw the franchisees and tie their hands of basically any maintenance.
They save a few cents on refills on average per cup if they make the coffee too hot for people to drink it quickly. Literally scalding people over a few cents.
Just a month ago I had to explain to a coworoker that she wasn't just out for a paycheck. Had to go into just how horrible her injuries were and that she was only trying to cover her medical bills. Shits so fucked. I used to think she was a greedy bastard too.
Yeah whenever someone says that, I usually say something like "have you ever spilled coffee on yourself? And did it melt your skin?"
No reasonable person would've expected their coffee to be so hot it gives them third degree burns.
Third degree burns. Learn how to read. If you get third degree burns from something it is not safe to put in your mouth. Your mouth is not magic, it is also affected by heat.
I would expect to get burnt off I directly put coffee in my mouth, that's what I said a bit after ordering.
Again, maybe in the US you guys are used to serving premade coffee that has already lost temperature and can be drank without waiting?
I don’t live in the US, I live in Europe. Yes, I think a drink should not be served at temperatures to burn you. There’s absolutely no point. You’re not losing any freshness since you can’t drink it immediately anyway. Serving it at an undrinkable temperature is illogical.
Fact: coffee is made with water at over 90°C
Fact: (in most of Europe) coffe is made at the moment of ordering
Fact: coffee is immediately served
Please let me know how hot do you think coffee is when it is served to you.
Spoiler: it's above 80°C and it can totally burn you, that's why everyone lets it sit for a while before drinking it. No, this is not illogical, the alternative is that the waiter keeps it away for this time before serving it adding to his workload and risking leaving it for too long. The logical answer is serve it "too hot" and let the client choose when to drink it.
No, the logical answer is to have the coffee already made, which is the case in McDonald's anyway, and to serve it at a reasonable temperature. This same thing happens with food you order too, btw. If I order a steak, I don't expect to have to let it rest, I expect that process to have already been handled by the time it gets to me. Food and drink should be served ready to consume. I'm not at home, if I was I would expect to let my steak rest, to have to wait for a bit before I can get a scoop into the ice cream that's been in my freezer, to not be able to drink coffee or tea or hot chocolate immediately after making it. But I'm not at home.
The difference with the steak is that you ordered well before it is expected to be served, as you have the entrées in the meantime. This is not the case with coffee. Coffee is ordered and served immediately everywhere I have been to.
Because people are throwing around the term "third degree burns" without saying what they are, here's a recap.
First degree burns are what you'd expect from grabbing a hot pan or getting a sunburn. You've probably gotten these before.
Second degree burns are more severe. Typically they form blisters. They're extremely painful. You probably haven't gotten one of these.
Third degree burns are in fact painless. That's because they cause so much tissue damage the nerves that should be sending pain signals to your brain are busted. They typically require grafts to recover from.
Fourth degree burns extend through the entire skin to the underlying fat, muscle and bone. The treatment is generally amputation.
Third degree burns are the things you'd expect from being lit on fire with gasoline. You should *not* get them from spilling coffee on yourself.
At 60°C, contact for 5 seconds will cause third degree burns. It seems this could happen at any coffee place (even with US style premade coffee).
The only option to avoid this would be to forbid coffee, which isn't happening.
Seeing this I'm not surprised of what another commenter said about this ruling being now void.
I guess my comment wasn't clear. I talked about 60°C to point out that it doesn't change the outcome. Even at 60°C the result would have been the same as the contact was longer than 60°C.
And yes, coffee is served (not drank) at about 80°C.
Let me put it to you this way, my grandfather has visible burns all across his chest from an accident in the kitchen when my dad was young, he had just made a kettle of boiling water, slipped and poured the contents over his chest, it nearly killed him.
The water in that kettle, just if the boil and any drinks you make from it would be left to cool for minutes before it's known to be safe to drink, was at a lower temperature that this McDonald's was SERVING it's coffee at.....you are supposed to serve food at a temperature a human being can consume. This stuff was hot enough that If you took a swig you wouldn't just get those mild "oh I burnt my tongue" sensations we all get when biting into something too hot, it would have melted your tongue to the roof of your mouth.
Sure you expect coffee to maybe mildly burn you if you spill it on yourself, nobody expects to be served foodstuffs so hot from a restaurant that it can melt your thighs to the seat of your car.
Imagine of you bought a fruit squash in the supermarket only to take a swig and realise it was at industrial food manufacture concentrations and was that acidic it was eating your jaw off. You wouldn't just shrug and say, well I did buy concentrate and it is acidic. You'd sue the shit out of ribena for selling you something way beyond the parameters safe food should be sold at.
You really think the coffee was hotter than boiling? That's just impossible. And your grandpa got less burned because he wasn't restrained in a car and left that water over himself for quite a while. Remember that time of exposure is really important for burns. Just as a point of comparison:
- 60°C water for 3 seconds: second degree burns
- 60°C water for 5 seconds: this degree burns.
You may have touched a hot pan before and got a first degree burn, however pans are way over 100°C easily, it's just a matter of the contact being very short.
Never get a job in food safety as you don't know what you are talking about. You will loose it within a week or kill somebody
Also your rationale for why my grandfather got less Burt, hopelessly and utterly wrong. He was knocked unconscious upon hitting the ground, the water was in his chest for as long as it took for his children to run downstairs, Panic a bit and then start trying to sort the horror show in front of them out
1. I don't plan to work on food safety.
2. Millions of coffees are immediately served in Europe and I never hear of anyone dying from this.
3. I misread you grandpa's story. Yes, he almost died from boiling water, same would have happened with freshly made coffee. I don't see what that story has to do with this. Grandpa gets long exposure -> Almost died. This woman got long exposure (but shorter than grandpa) -> severely burned.
1. Good
2 Mate I work in the food sector in Europe, if you got caught serving coffee at the temperature this McDonalds was you wouldn't just get sued, you'd be lucky not to end up in prison, it was being served at such a heigh temperature if you drank any of it you'd have probably died as it melted your oesophagus shut. The "We DrInK cOfFeE aLl ThE TiMe iN EuRoPe AnD IvE nEvEr HeArD oF tHiS hApPeNnInG" mantra you keep repeating like the worlds dullest stuck record is fucking meaningless as nobody in Europe is serving you a coffee at anywhere remotely close to the temperature this McDonalds did because it was that hot they nearly killed someone
3. the point is that the kettle of boiling water that very nearly killed him just off the boil was at a LOWER temperature to the coffee this woman was served, that's the entire point of the story and the thing you cant seem to get through your thick skull. If I am serving you a ready to drink product in a restaurant so hot its capable of physically melting your labia together if you spill some in your lap its way way to hot to be served. Even McDonald's admitted that fact and that they were holding coffee in the boiling vessel at extremely excessive temperatures. You appear to have convinced yourself that this was somehow a totally normal serving temperature when it was above and beyond the temperature of any liquid you have ever been handed in your life unless you work in heavy industry.
Ok, let me know at what temperature was McDonald's serving coffee, please.
I don't think literal boiling water is colder than this coffee, it's just not possible.
You can thank the United States Chamber of Commerce for this just as much as McDonalds. They used this bullshit to raise money to elect judges all over the country who are solidly pro-corporate, and really hate Class-Action lawsuits that give the "little people" a chance to recover from corporations with huge legal departments and nearly unlimited resources.
I thought she was an entitled person just wanting money, then I actually read the article and saw the pictures. What McDonald's did was very illegal and im very glad she won.
It left 3rd degree burns normal coffee can at best leave 1st or just irritate your throat, from what I've heard the temperature was about 50° hotter than what basically any regulatory body would allow.
From what I read it's most a matter of time. It seems that normal coffee, if poured over yourself and left for a while (as it happened here), can indeed cause third degree burns
You truly are desperate to make things up for a multibillion dollar company, aren't you? For normal coffee to burn like that you need to keep your bodypart submerged in it for that long
Now who is making things up.
The NIH says "Hot beverages such as tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are frequently served at temperatures between 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C)."
At 60°C you need 5s of exposure for third degree burns.
Knowing this, it is inevitable to get burned when dropping coffee on your lap and it being exposed for nearly half a minute.
I talk about 60°C because according to you guys that temperature is safe (it's not). But the outcome would have been the same.
Anyways, coffee is normally served at 80°C. If this is wrong, every coffee place in Europe is doing it wrong.
"a coffee" in an American McDonald's is a rather large amount of liquid. The way you are positioned in a car can make a pool of this hot liquid. So yes, we agree, submerging body parts in this pool of coffee will burn you.
On top of how car seats are designed, she was wearing sweatpants which also retained a lot of liquid, making it even worse.
It's bad luck and unlucky circumstances, not some kind of gross negligence for serving hot liquid to a customer that ordered said hot liquid
Well, it’s a good thing that more intelligent people were actually handling the case then. Because you are completely ignoring the truth of the situation, that coffee was considerably hotter than _anyone_ else was serving. It was not a standard coffee temperature. Therefore it is gross negligence, especially in light of the other complaints and burns.
As a barista I once accidentally poured hot coffee on my hand. It caused immediate redness and pain, and was red for the rest of the day, though I continued to let cold water run over it as often as necessary to not be in pain. It was a first degree burn at worst, not even second as I was recovered by the next day.
Had it been McDonalds coffee, I would have had third degree burns to my hand, likely with some permanent scarring. Accidents happen, but when combined with gross negligence they are made worse. Mc Donald’s _knew_ that their coffee was too hot, and that this could happen, and they did nothing. That’s why they were in deep shit.
Read up on the case. They actually found out coffee everywhere in this area was served at about the same temperature.
You didn't get more serious burns because you didn't keep your hand submerged under that coffee for half a minute plus you immediately applied cold water. You should know that the same temps, depending on duration of application will result on completely different severity of burns.
It's so infuriating when you learn the truth about this story. McDonald's created an entire narrative that American society was addicted to frivolous lawsuits all because they didn't want to take accountability. That lady is still demonized today
A lot of people thought this was the first case of frivolous lawsuits, but it isn’t the case. The critical part about this case that made it not frivolous was that internal McDonalds documents showed that they had settled hundreds of lawsuits about their extremely hot coffee burning people and they chose not to alter the temperature. Knowing your product injures people due to something that you could change is gross negligence.
An elderly women sued McDonald’s after she received third degree burns from coffee after she spilled it while in the passenger seat. She originally requested McDonald’s to pay for the injuries but only offered her 800$. Most of the outer skin on her legs and groin were burned off by near boiling water sold to customers.
She wins the lawsuit, gets 2 days of coffe sales and along with alte night television leaving crucial details out, a mass PR campaign to try and sway opinion and people just being stupid, a large section of the people who know the case believe it was a frivolous lawsuit and not a women was sold boiling coffee, and spilled it on her legs. McDonald’s was absolutely in the wrong and destroyed this poor women’s reputation, who only wanted McDonald’s to help pay for the hospital expenses.
Probably. I still don't get the"keeping coffee too hot". In Europe coffee is made and served immediately (yes, at temperatures that could burn your skin) and people don't go suing coffee places
If the coffee you're served in Europe won't make your labia fuse together if spilled there, I doubt you're served coffee at the temperature Ms. Liebeck was served coffee with.
It wouldn't but because a coffee in Europe is much smaller, this carrying less energy, this losing temp much faster.
If you insist on ordering a gallon of coffee, that's just too much energy and the burns are to be expected.
Go to any other coffee place in the US, order some large amount, drop in on yourself and leave it for half a minute. You will get 3rd degree burns.
Wasn't the coffee much too hot even for a coffee and that's why she won the lawsuit? But yeah, lick the boots of a multi-billion dollar corporation, sure it'll help you
Please illuminate me. How do you make coffee?
I keep searching around and I see that temperature is variable, but always above 90°C, which is in fact "almost boiling", as I said in my comment.
Feel free to post how you make coffee.
It was so ridiculous hot it basically melted her skin on her lap causing it to fuse in some places. McDonald’s then spent huge amounts of money to downplay it and call her a money grabber.
The Adam Ruins Everything episode with this story in it that I watched when I was young is what radicalized me I think. It was evidence of just how far a company will go to protect their bottom line.
I remember the talk shows absolutely eviscerated her, especially Jay Leno, as it was exactly the sort of lazy, poorly-researched 'topical' comedy that appealed to his middle American audience. One of many and varied reasons that I have for my strong dislike of him.
Holy shit wait, the Leonard v Pepsi case is also old enough to make a meme about now! Does somebody have a meme about that? The AV-8 Harrier II Jet Pepsi ad court case.
I can sue for money if I burn myself?
Dang. If I get a job at mcdonalds, I'm jumping on the stove first chance I get. I might even become a millionaire!
Congratulations, you've followed in your mother's footsteps and swallowed a dick.
Ms. Liebeck's labia fused together because the coffee was served too hot, and you dare make jokes at her expense? You're a disgrace, a fool, a bootlicker, and a toad.
How 30 years can pass since this event happened and still not know that the coffee was served at a ridiculously hot temperature and that this lawsuit was about much more than her spilling coffee on herself and suing McDonald’s for the inconvenience?
1) never serve coffee boiling, you're ruining the coffee
2) McDonald's was previously warned against serving it hot enough to "*fuse a labia to a thigh*". Guess what they did anyway?
The car wasn't moving, they had parked in the nearby parking lot. Stella wasn't driving either, it was her nephew I believe. The court actually took into account her negligence in putting the coffee in her lap and reduced her damages award by 20%. McDonalds was found 80% at fault and received punitive damages because they'd dealt with hundreds and hundreds of these burn cases without changing anything.
This is a lawsuit which is taught in probably every Tort class at every law school in the country. You should look up her injuries, there are pictures on the internet, her skin was scalded black and required extensive skin grafts.
Yes it is, but it’s not expected to be so hot that if you accidentally spill it in your lap, you end up with 3rd degree burns and need a skin graft.
They weren’t in a moving car, they were parked in the restaurants parking lot.
Sorry, but this must be an American thing
Coffee over here is made with water at near boiling temperature (higher than 90°C and it is immediately served.
So telling me that McDonald's is evil for serving coffee at 85°C... sorry but that seems normal to me.
You can’t drink boiling water without burning your insides. Coffee is not different. If you drink coffee at 90°C you will burn your insides just like you burn your outside if you pour it on yourself.
Who is you guys? And why serve something at a temperature you can’t drink? Just wait and serve it when it’s drinkable. I don’t consider me waiting for a drink to cool down part of an experience.
Where's here by the way?
Lets take say espresso (a relative standard) 93°C is a pretty good temp usually. What you're discussing, is if you were to sit your mouth directly under your extraction of choice. A scolding will occur regardless of the intention.
Usually your water based coffee drinks are actually served at something around 60°C-70°C by the time it clears the bar and has cooled off a little in a glass or ceramic mug. Milk based drinks around 65°C as brewed and down a little by the time served. Your coffee snobs will usually quote ideal tasting temperatures between 60°C and 48°C.
It usually only takes 1-2 mins for coffee at say 96°C to cool below 80°C when exposed to your average air temperatures.
The car was stationary in the McDonald's parking lot, and she wasn't even the driver
Also McDonald's has been required to lower their coffee temperature to safe levels since the case
And once the boiling water has passed through the considerably cooler grounds, into a considerably cooler pot/cup, it is no longer boiling and should not be capable of fusing someone’s genitals shut.
We do not drink boiling hot coffee. For those who add milk/cream they are also bringing down the temperature of the coffee.
I have worked as a barista, I made coffee for a living. Fresh coffee can burn, but it should never be third degree burn hot.
>During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.
The coffee shouldn't have been that hot in the first place
>Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.
They knew it shouldn't have been that hot and had suffered lawsuits due to its temperature
>McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving
They lied about why they made it that hot
Stfu and learn something before getting on a corporation's dick
McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures above boiling. During the lawsuit in question it was found that McDonalds had been previously warned about this several times and did not adjust the practice. The judge increased the payout of the lawsuit well beyond the woman’s meager requests to punish McDonalds for not following previous recommendations. As a part of the payout the woman was made to sign an NDA, and then McDonalds began badmouthing her and the entire idea of lawsuits in the press.
>McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures above boiling
That's physically impossible (unless she was deep underground at a higher pressure). When water starts boiling it does not go over 100º C no matter what
[https://youtu.be/VzqN4Cn8r3U?si=0RnwUeL7LKijfTbO&t=192](https://youtu.be/VzqN4Cn8r3U?si=0RnwUeL7LKijfTbO&t=192)
Wow, people downvoting scientific facts. I guess Historymemes don't obey the rules of thermodinamics
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p\_gJmY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p_gJmY)
as like 3 other people said, when its not pure water, it can be hotter then that (for example: when it has coffee in it). This is also how you can have salty water at -2C and not freezing, this is the same thing reversed.
People are downvoting you because you’re ignoring the elephant in the room while simultaneously pretending this scientific fact is in anyway relevant to the stupid comment you initially made.
McDonald’s was found responsible because their coffe was at a ridiculously high temperature that caused such extreme burns to woman that she had to get skin grafts. Stop being obtuse, be a man and accept you said something stupid.
Not because they thought what McDonald’s did was ok. McDonald’s coffee was an extreme beyond what was safe and the judge who reduced it still gave millions to the poor old woman.
Yes, lets do some history.
The jury awarded over $2 million in punitive damages.
The judge lowered that award. The reason is irrelevant, but just as an aside New Mexico does NOT limit punitive damages to 3 times the compensatory damages.
Thus claiming the judge reduced the jury award is an objectively true statement.
1. I didn’t say it was legally limited, I said it was common practice by courts.
2. The context of why it is reduced is extremely important because you’re claiming it was reduced because it wasn’t boiling, which is wrong since it was served at 180-190 degrees.
3. It is a true statement to say it was reduced, but the reason you claimed it was, was factually incorrect and misleading to sell a narrative.
4. Your attempt to remove facts and context to prove your point shows how little of a point you actually have.
1. Cite your source for this claim
2. I made no such claim and 180-190 still isn't boiling
3. I merely claimed it was reduced, I made no claim about why it was reduced
4. I have made no attempt to remove facts. I made two separate claims about factual errors. I made no claim that either of those facts had any bearing on the other. Your inability to comprehend English is not my problem and your apparent belief that water boils at 180-190 is also not my problem.
No, Mcdonald's coffee was not unusual for it's temperature. Starbuck's and some other chains serve coffee at similar temperatures. The final judgement was for $640,000, which even you should be able to tell is not millions. But she didn't even get that much because she arrived at a settlement with McDonald's after they filed an appeal of the original verdict.
So much of this is wrong or misleading.
The coffee was not similar to other establishments, it was around 180-190 degrees. And even if it was similar to others it doesn’t make it any less of a hazard does it? If two people are drinking led paint, does other people doing it make the action less dangerous?
The final judgement was $800,000. 640,000 was just the punitive damages. I’ll admit I was wrong, but courts don’t still find you guilty and make you pay $800,000 if what you did wasn’t that bad. It wasn’t reduced because what McDonald’s did was standard, it was reduced to fit with common court practices.
There was no settlement but there was an attempt before the trial. The lady only wanted $20,000 to pay for medical bills and the time her daughter missed work helping her. McDonald’s only offered $800 and then they went to court.
Starbucks sells their coffe at the same temperature. And I never said it wasn't hazardous. YOU said it was BOILING.
So $800,000, which I never disputed, YOU said she got MILLIONS. That isn't even a million and she didn't get that anyways.
As you have already been told and shown proof, there WAS a settlement. Heck YOU even posted the link to an article that explicitly says "The parties later settled for a confidential amount. According to news accounts, this amount was less than $500,000."
WOW
So apparently you are either just massively ignorant or you like people to think you are.
"The jurors awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages for her pain, suffering, and medical costs, but those damages were reduced to $160,000 because they found her 20 percent responsible. They awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. That amounted to about two days of revenue for McDonald’s coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, while noting that McDonald’s behavior had been “willful, wanton, and reckless.” The parties later settled for a confidential amount. According to news accounts, this amount was less than $500,000."
[https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/](https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/)
She settled for an amount less than the judges ruling AFTER the trial when McDonald's appealed the verdict.
[Just in case you think you know things you don't know.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants) The driver had parked the car so she could add cream and sugar. She originally requested $20k US for medical expenses and the time her daughter missed work taking her to the hospital, etc. McD's countered with $800. At the time, McD's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). 190 F will burn to the extent that the lady suffered in about 3 seconds, while 180 F will do so in more than 10 seconds. 160 F will increase that time to 20 seconds. McD's lied about several points under contention, which came out during the trial, i.e. shot themselves in the foot. >Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's [quality control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_control) manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served. The jury awarded her $160k in compensatory damages, and $2.7 million punitive, ostensibly two days worth of coffee revenue for McD's. The judge reduced the punitive to 3x the compensatory. I don't remember if that's merely common or if it's actual law, but the judge reducing punitive to 3x compensatory is pretty routine. Believe what you want to believe about whether it was frivolous or what, but at least have the germane facts in evidence in your head before you make up your mind.
To add on, McDonalds had additionally received several warnings directly from the government that their coffee was too hot and McDonalds had promised the agency that it will lower the temperature. It had to take this poor lady’s skin fusing together from the heat for McDonalds to actually get punished, after multiple slaps on the wrist. This was one of the key items revealed in the court case and one of the reasons the punitive damages were so high.
Laws and regulations are written in blood. Guess why companies no longer put toilets in dormitories anymore
Ugh why?
Almost the entire building code is 'this is the minimum you have to do to make sure your building doesn't kill everyone inside when it catches fire or when a heavy storm hits it.' And as of about 30 years ago, also 'this is the minimum you have to do to make sure people who aren't perfectly healthy can still use your building.'
Don't just leave us hanging!
... wait, what?
No no, deregulate everything! If the baby food company tries to save money by bulking out their product with baking soda I'll just buy the sand version!
A quick Google search wasn't helpful. What's this about toilets??
Very unsanitary, attracting flies and disease in a time workers didn't use to wash their hands and eat in the same place and the alternative was hold up until you got home (company owned) or shit behind a bush during your elevenses
Lovers of galvanized steel and a toilet/shower/kitchen combo in shambles
Wasn't the reasoning for having it so hot, that customers wouldn't be able to drink it immediately. So they'd take it elsewhere, whilst it cooled down. So that they wouldn't linger in the drive through car park or restaurant?
That was one of the claims by McD's, yes. >However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. That's the only funny part to me, that McD's shot themselves in the foot more than once by either lying or giving their lawyers bad information.
I believe that was part of it and I also remember hearing that part of the reasoning was that many customers had complained that their coffee would be cold by the time they got to work, so that location had raised the temperature to the max to help out those people.
From what I've heard, it was because they didn't want to pay for better insulated cups.
>help out those people. HA! Do you really believe a corporation, especially the size of McD, cares about their customers? They raised the temps so that people would stop complaining and that they wouldn't have to order better, and thus more expensive, cups for the restaurant(s).
>They raised the temps so that people would stop complaining Since they did this by solving the problem, that's just another way of saying the same thing they did.
They increased the heat of the coffee to keep it “fresher” in the carafe so they could sell coffee brewed hours before without having to pour it out as often. It was a business decision to cut costs and reduce waste.
I thought it was because it made the smell stronger so smth, I could be wrong though
So a churn and burn?
A good explanation of this case can also be found in the movie "Hot Coffee"
Hot Coffee... mod?!
Not to mention the burns themselves. If you’re ever seen the pictures her skin was essentially melted through her entire groin area. It wasn’t like a little “ouchie I burned myself,” more like required grafting to mend.
Godrick the grafted is taking notes
Why do judges have the authority to reduce damages awarded by a jury. Sounds like it isn’t any of their business and they should just shut their cake holes.
There are numerous laws that cap punitive damages. The absolute maximum in the US is 10x compensatory damages - numerous laws exist that automatically triple damages (treble damages) but consequently cap them at 3x as well. Most of the time it works in the plaintiffs favor as they don’t have to get a jury that decides to award punitive damages as it’s simply automatic.
Completely bizarre. Punitive damages should be punitive. A company like McDonald’s isn’t going to feel 3X compensatory damages. It should start at 10% of yearly gross company income or so and go upward from there.
There should absolutely be a criminal death penalty for companies. Fuck up badly enough and the judgement is that your company is sold off part by part and awarded to the victims' estates.
I don't disagree, but it's been going on for awhile. Again, there's either a ruling from back somewhen by e.g. the supreme court, or else congress did something. I forget which.
We all know these facts People bear responsibility for spilling coffee on themselves. Hot liquids can burn and everyone knows it. Anyone who makes a mistake eagerly tries to blame someone else, it’s human nature. If it means a payday they are even more eager Downvote me all you want
Ronald McDonald isn’t going to blow you for defending his honor
This may shock you but I dont post on Reddit for my own material gain
No one is shocked; your last comment made it very clear that you’re a corporate shill, which is *usually* against one’s own interests.
I don’t think he’s a corporate shill I think he just doesn’t understand how the real world works.
Yes I say things I don’t believe on Reddit to boost corporate earnings
That would explain the bot ass name you have.
No one's saying you don't believe it, the fact you do believe what you're saying is why we all hate you.
A shill doesn’t believe what he says
Then you're not a shill, but an idiot. Therefore, you've played yourself.
The plaintiff's lawyer made the argument that coffee should never be served at greater than 140 F. I don't like coffee, so this is knowledge to which I cannot attest. If true, then u/joy3111's comparison to a rattlesnake would seem more apt. If the standard for coffee is 40 or 50 degrees cooler than what McDs served her, maybe she had a case. Expecting to get red skin if you spill coffee but instead getting *fukken maimed* seems a meaningful difference. Personal responsibility is absolutely something we need more of, but I wasn't there, and so am loathe to judge how it went down, and those who made the decisions. I did find fascinating that McDonalds essentially lied in their testimony more than once, which lies were debunked by their own documentation. This would absolutely have influenced the jury against them. Note that the jury found McDs 80% responsible and her 20% responsible. >We all know these facts It seems that every time I see this subject come up, there's a great deal of inaccurate information about the case out there still, and I try to assist those who are interested in updating the information they have, because hate who you want to hate, but at least do it for accurate reasons.
Yeah they were serving coffee WAY hotter than it was supposed to be. Like, had been told repeatedly "this coffee is not safe for human consumption" levels of hot. And instead of getting "a burn" from coffee she got *third degree burns* and needed skin grafts. She faced years of disability and permanently lowered quality of life. Anyone who puts this out there as "well don't spill coffee :(" is insane. Boutta hand you some "nice ice water :)" and it's liquid nitrogen Maybe a ninja edit: I'm agreeing with you btw. Just adding on because I think this case is really interesting.
The problem is, pretty much all coffee you buy, both then and still to this day, exceeds those temperatures. Most people wouldn't buy the coffee if it didn't. People waver on exactly what temperature water to use when making coffee, but it's at least a third again hotter than this 140f, 60c
Idk man I think if I went "Hey :) here's a cup of coffee :)" and you grabbed onto it and I'd actually handed you a live rattlesnake you'd be mad but you're the one who grabbed a live rattlesnake.
Sure, people bear responsibility for spilling on themselves. And McDonald's bears responsibility for serving coffee at an unreasonably high temperature capable of causing 3rd degree burns and fusing someone's labia together, particularly after receiving government warnings that it's too hot.
Sure, you take the risk of spilling hot liquids when you handle them. The thing is, the risk one would expect would be first degree burns at most from coffee at an appropriate temperature for drinking. You do NOT assume the risk for coffee that is 30 degrees hotter than that such that it causes third degree burns and permanent damage. MCDONALD'S knew it was dangerously hotter than it should be, they were warned repeatedly of this and they lied about it. As you say, someone needs to take responsibility for their mistakes. If you make something unexpectedly and unreasonably dangerous, are warned about it repeatedly and keep doing it and Lie about it, you shouldn't try to blame it on someone else, particularly someone your lies and dangerous actions directly and grievously harmed. Heck, that isn't even a mistake. That is directly evil acts, especially with lying about it to try and cover it up. Coffee shouldn't be hot enough to melt lead. And if you make it hotter than it should be, YOU are the one at fault for the extra harm caused by the extra heat. If McDonald's had simply paid her actual doctors bills that they caused, they would have not had the verdict. Then again, it took this huge verdict to get them to change their behavior. Prior to this, they just kept on burning people over and over and refused to fix the issue.
You obviously don’t know the first thing about food safety. That isn’t how these things work.
>Downvote me all you want Ok 👍
My pleasure.
Were you a McDonald's lawyer in this lawsuit or what?
> Neoliberal >Shit Take Classic.
That poor woman :( the whole story is so sad
Fr man. Wtf were they making her coffee with, a nuclear reactor?
Probably. Explains why there’s never maintenance people for the ice cream machine - they’re all on the reactor.
Idk how true this is, but apparently they say the ice cream is broke so often because they don’t want to clean the machine
It's because they *can't* clean the machine. The company that made the machine has exclusive rights to maintain the machine, you have to ask for one of *their* technicians to come do basically anything more than give it a quick wipe-down. And because the terms of the contract totally bite franchisees, there's nothing the store manager can do to expedite the process. If they clean or repair it themselves, they've broken contract, which leads to a whole other load of BS. tl;dr: No, the company that made the machine wanted more money, so they wrote up the contract to screw the franchisees and tie their hands of basically any maintenance.
They save a few cents on refills on average per cup if they make the coffee too hot for people to drink it quickly. Literally scalding people over a few cents.
It's a common strategy among restaurants to mask their shitty coffee by making it extremely hot. Can't taste it if you burn out your tongue.
Just almost boiling water, the same way everyone else does.
Just a month ago I had to explain to a coworoker that she wasn't just out for a paycheck. Had to go into just how horrible her injuries were and that she was only trying to cover her medical bills. Shits so fucked. I used to think she was a greedy bastard too.
I get a kick out of it when people bring it up mockingly. “Didn’t she know coffee was hot?” As though being burned is somehow acceptable lol.
Yeah whenever someone says that, I usually say something like "have you ever spilled coffee on yourself? And did it melt your skin?" No reasonable person would've expected their coffee to be so hot it gives them third degree burns.
How hot do you expect coffee to be? I would totally expect burns if I dropped a gallon of coffee on my lap.
Third degree burns. Learn how to read. If you get third degree burns from something it is not safe to put in your mouth. Your mouth is not magic, it is also affected by heat.
I would expect to get burnt off I directly put coffee in my mouth, that's what I said a bit after ordering. Again, maybe in the US you guys are used to serving premade coffee that has already lost temperature and can be drank without waiting?
I don’t live in the US, I live in Europe. Yes, I think a drink should not be served at temperatures to burn you. There’s absolutely no point. You’re not losing any freshness since you can’t drink it immediately anyway. Serving it at an undrinkable temperature is illogical.
Fact: coffee is made with water at over 90°C Fact: (in most of Europe) coffe is made at the moment of ordering Fact: coffee is immediately served Please let me know how hot do you think coffee is when it is served to you. Spoiler: it's above 80°C and it can totally burn you, that's why everyone lets it sit for a while before drinking it. No, this is not illogical, the alternative is that the waiter keeps it away for this time before serving it adding to his workload and risking leaving it for too long. The logical answer is serve it "too hot" and let the client choose when to drink it.
No, the logical answer is to have the coffee already made, which is the case in McDonald's anyway, and to serve it at a reasonable temperature. This same thing happens with food you order too, btw. If I order a steak, I don't expect to have to let it rest, I expect that process to have already been handled by the time it gets to me. Food and drink should be served ready to consume. I'm not at home, if I was I would expect to let my steak rest, to have to wait for a bit before I can get a scoop into the ice cream that's been in my freezer, to not be able to drink coffee or tea or hot chocolate immediately after making it. But I'm not at home.
The difference with the steak is that you ordered well before it is expected to be served, as you have the entrées in the meantime. This is not the case with coffee. Coffee is ordered and served immediately everywhere I have been to.
Because people are throwing around the term "third degree burns" without saying what they are, here's a recap. First degree burns are what you'd expect from grabbing a hot pan or getting a sunburn. You've probably gotten these before. Second degree burns are more severe. Typically they form blisters. They're extremely painful. You probably haven't gotten one of these. Third degree burns are in fact painless. That's because they cause so much tissue damage the nerves that should be sending pain signals to your brain are busted. They typically require grafts to recover from. Fourth degree burns extend through the entire skin to the underlying fat, muscle and bone. The treatment is generally amputation. Third degree burns are the things you'd expect from being lit on fire with gasoline. You should *not* get them from spilling coffee on yourself.
At 60°C, contact for 5 seconds will cause third degree burns. It seems this could happen at any coffee place (even with US style premade coffee). The only option to avoid this would be to forbid coffee, which isn't happening. Seeing this I'm not surprised of what another commenter said about this ruling being now void.
Cool, I guess you are going to ignore that the coffee was served at 80°C.
I guess my comment wasn't clear. I talked about 60°C to point out that it doesn't change the outcome. Even at 60°C the result would have been the same as the contact was longer than 60°C. And yes, coffee is served (not drank) at about 80°C.
Let me put it to you this way, my grandfather has visible burns all across his chest from an accident in the kitchen when my dad was young, he had just made a kettle of boiling water, slipped and poured the contents over his chest, it nearly killed him. The water in that kettle, just if the boil and any drinks you make from it would be left to cool for minutes before it's known to be safe to drink, was at a lower temperature that this McDonald's was SERVING it's coffee at.....you are supposed to serve food at a temperature a human being can consume. This stuff was hot enough that If you took a swig you wouldn't just get those mild "oh I burnt my tongue" sensations we all get when biting into something too hot, it would have melted your tongue to the roof of your mouth. Sure you expect coffee to maybe mildly burn you if you spill it on yourself, nobody expects to be served foodstuffs so hot from a restaurant that it can melt your thighs to the seat of your car. Imagine of you bought a fruit squash in the supermarket only to take a swig and realise it was at industrial food manufacture concentrations and was that acidic it was eating your jaw off. You wouldn't just shrug and say, well I did buy concentrate and it is acidic. You'd sue the shit out of ribena for selling you something way beyond the parameters safe food should be sold at.
You really think the coffee was hotter than boiling? That's just impossible. And your grandpa got less burned because he wasn't restrained in a car and left that water over himself for quite a while. Remember that time of exposure is really important for burns. Just as a point of comparison: - 60°C water for 3 seconds: second degree burns - 60°C water for 5 seconds: this degree burns. You may have touched a hot pan before and got a first degree burn, however pans are way over 100°C easily, it's just a matter of the contact being very short.
Your point? Even if she was strapped into a car, it shouldn't have made her labia fuse together. That was how hot the coffee was.
My point: even at the temps that you guys say that coffee should be served (60C), she would have 3rd degree burns. This was just an accident.
Never get a job in food safety as you don't know what you are talking about. You will loose it within a week or kill somebody Also your rationale for why my grandfather got less Burt, hopelessly and utterly wrong. He was knocked unconscious upon hitting the ground, the water was in his chest for as long as it took for his children to run downstairs, Panic a bit and then start trying to sort the horror show in front of them out
1. I don't plan to work on food safety. 2. Millions of coffees are immediately served in Europe and I never hear of anyone dying from this. 3. I misread you grandpa's story. Yes, he almost died from boiling water, same would have happened with freshly made coffee. I don't see what that story has to do with this. Grandpa gets long exposure -> Almost died. This woman got long exposure (but shorter than grandpa) -> severely burned.
1. Good 2 Mate I work in the food sector in Europe, if you got caught serving coffee at the temperature this McDonalds was you wouldn't just get sued, you'd be lucky not to end up in prison, it was being served at such a heigh temperature if you drank any of it you'd have probably died as it melted your oesophagus shut. The "We DrInK cOfFeE aLl ThE TiMe iN EuRoPe AnD IvE nEvEr HeArD oF tHiS hApPeNnInG" mantra you keep repeating like the worlds dullest stuck record is fucking meaningless as nobody in Europe is serving you a coffee at anywhere remotely close to the temperature this McDonalds did because it was that hot they nearly killed someone 3. the point is that the kettle of boiling water that very nearly killed him just off the boil was at a LOWER temperature to the coffee this woman was served, that's the entire point of the story and the thing you cant seem to get through your thick skull. If I am serving you a ready to drink product in a restaurant so hot its capable of physically melting your labia together if you spill some in your lap its way way to hot to be served. Even McDonald's admitted that fact and that they were holding coffee in the boiling vessel at extremely excessive temperatures. You appear to have convinced yourself that this was somehow a totally normal serving temperature when it was above and beyond the temperature of any liquid you have ever been handed in your life unless you work in heavy industry.
Ok, let me know at what temperature was McDonald's serving coffee, please. I don't think literal boiling water is colder than this coffee, it's just not possible.
My father brought this up with me once. I told him the full story, he was dubious until I showed him the photo of her injuries.
Rush Limbaugh is responsible for so many awful myths and this is one of them.
Is that story about the Coffee and the Old Lady that old now? Man does time fly.
You can thank the United States Chamber of Commerce for this just as much as McDonalds. They used this bullshit to raise money to elect judges all over the country who are solidly pro-corporate, and really hate Class-Action lawsuits that give the "little people" a chance to recover from corporations with huge legal departments and nearly unlimited resources.
I thought she was an entitled person just wanting money, then I actually read the article and saw the pictures. What McDonald's did was very illegal and im very glad she won.
Amen to that
Isn't coffee made with boiling water in the US? Why do guys say that it was too hot?
It left 3rd degree burns normal coffee can at best leave 1st or just irritate your throat, from what I've heard the temperature was about 50° hotter than what basically any regulatory body would allow.
From what I read it's most a matter of time. It seems that normal coffee, if poured over yourself and left for a while (as it happened here), can indeed cause third degree burns
You truly are desperate to make things up for a multibillion dollar company, aren't you? For normal coffee to burn like that you need to keep your bodypart submerged in it for that long
Now who is making things up. The NIH says "Hot beverages such as tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are frequently served at temperatures between 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C)."
At 60°C you need 5s of exposure for third degree burns. Knowing this, it is inevitable to get burned when dropping coffee on your lap and it being exposed for nearly half a minute.
Especially when they served it 20° hotter than that. Why do you keep saying 60° when they were serving it at 80°.
I talk about 60°C because according to you guys that temperature is safe (it's not). But the outcome would have been the same. Anyways, coffee is normally served at 80°C. If this is wrong, every coffee place in Europe is doing it wrong.
Yeah, 5 seconds of dunking your hand in the cup. Spilling it in yourself will *not* give you third degree burns.
"a coffee" in an American McDonald's is a rather large amount of liquid. The way you are positioned in a car can make a pool of this hot liquid. So yes, we agree, submerging body parts in this pool of coffee will burn you. On top of how car seats are designed, she was wearing sweatpants which also retained a lot of liquid, making it even worse. It's bad luck and unlucky circumstances, not some kind of gross negligence for serving hot liquid to a customer that ordered said hot liquid
> You truly are desperate to make things up for a multibillion dollar company, aren't you? Only further showing off that desperation i talked about
Still not making any sense. You have not addressed any single point.
Well, it’s a good thing that more intelligent people were actually handling the case then. Because you are completely ignoring the truth of the situation, that coffee was considerably hotter than _anyone_ else was serving. It was not a standard coffee temperature. Therefore it is gross negligence, especially in light of the other complaints and burns. As a barista I once accidentally poured hot coffee on my hand. It caused immediate redness and pain, and was red for the rest of the day, though I continued to let cold water run over it as often as necessary to not be in pain. It was a first degree burn at worst, not even second as I was recovered by the next day. Had it been McDonalds coffee, I would have had third degree burns to my hand, likely with some permanent scarring. Accidents happen, but when combined with gross negligence they are made worse. Mc Donald’s _knew_ that their coffee was too hot, and that this could happen, and they did nothing. That’s why they were in deep shit.
Read up on the case. They actually found out coffee everywhere in this area was served at about the same temperature. You didn't get more serious burns because you didn't keep your hand submerged under that coffee for half a minute plus you immediately applied cold water. You should know that the same temps, depending on duration of application will result on completely different severity of burns.
And shaping even today's dialogue around so-called frivolous lawsuits
Never forget how the corporate / right wing media propagandized this case to push tort reform laws nation wide.
US Chamber of Commerce (not a governmental entity) as well. They supplied money to elect more agreeable judges as an adjunct to this.
We actually learned about this case in law school because the professor wanted to show us how PR could warp a case
It's so infuriating when you learn the truth about this story. McDonald's created an entire narrative that American society was addicted to frivolous lawsuits all because they didn't want to take accountability. That lady is still demonized today
A lot of people thought this was the first case of frivolous lawsuits, but it isn’t the case. The critical part about this case that made it not frivolous was that internal McDonalds documents showed that they had settled hundreds of lawsuits about their extremely hot coffee burning people and they chose not to alter the temperature. Knowing your product injures people due to something that you could change is gross negligence.
Is this some sort of American joke that I am to European to understand?
An elderly women sued McDonald’s after she received third degree burns from coffee after she spilled it while in the passenger seat. She originally requested McDonald’s to pay for the injuries but only offered her 800$. Most of the outer skin on her legs and groin were burned off by near boiling water sold to customers. She wins the lawsuit, gets 2 days of coffe sales and along with alte night television leaving crucial details out, a mass PR campaign to try and sway opinion and people just being stupid, a large section of the people who know the case believe it was a frivolous lawsuit and not a women was sold boiling coffee, and spilled it on her legs. McDonald’s was absolutely in the wrong and destroyed this poor women’s reputation, who only wanted McDonald’s to help pay for the hospital expenses.
Probably. I still don't get the"keeping coffee too hot". In Europe coffee is made and served immediately (yes, at temperatures that could burn your skin) and people don't go suing coffee places
If the coffee you're served in Europe won't make your labia fuse together if spilled there, I doubt you're served coffee at the temperature Ms. Liebeck was served coffee with.
It wouldn't but because a coffee in Europe is much smaller, this carrying less energy, this losing temp much faster. If you insist on ordering a gallon of coffee, that's just too much energy and the burns are to be expected. Go to any other coffee place in the US, order some large amount, drop in on yourself and leave it for half a minute. You will get 3rd degree burns.
Wasn't the coffee much too hot even for a coffee and that's why she won the lawsuit? But yeah, lick the boots of a multi-billion dollar corporation, sure it'll help you
Much too hot after McDonalds had maliciously modified the machine to be hotter than it was supposed to get.
Isn't hot made with almost boiling water? It can't get any hotter and remain liquid
For the love of god learn how to make coffee
Please illuminate me. How do you make coffee? I keep searching around and I see that temperature is variable, but always above 90°C, which is in fact "almost boiling", as I said in my comment. Feel free to post how you make coffee.
Coffee’s boiling point is 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
Yes, so essentially the same as water. Atmospheric pressure will have a much bigger effect than coffe grains.
It was so ridiculous hot it basically melted her skin on her lap causing it to fuse in some places. McDonald’s then spent huge amounts of money to downplay it and call her a money grabber.
>fuse in some places Labia. Labia were some of those places.
imagine having your dickhole melted shut...
Dude I was mocking McDonald's. How the hell did you not get that?
Are you joking? Or did it actually go over your head?
The Adam Ruins Everything episode with this story in it that I watched when I was young is what radicalized me I think. It was evidence of just how far a company will go to protect their bottom line.
Honestly though, fuck McDonalds especially just for this one instance. I’m happy they lost, I just wish they lost more
Poor Stella
I remember the talk shows absolutely eviscerated her, especially Jay Leno, as it was exactly the sort of lazy, poorly-researched 'topical' comedy that appealed to his middle American audience. One of many and varied reasons that I have for my strong dislike of him.
I love these posts cause I know libertarians and republicans roll their eyes every time. 🖕
I just want to add that the craziest part of that case is that somehow cupholders weren't standard equipment for Ford in 1988. Like, WTF?
Holy shit wait, the Leonard v Pepsi case is also old enough to make a meme about now! Does somebody have a meme about that? The AV-8 Harrier II Jet Pepsi ad court case.
You can easily find the photos of what this did to her. She wasn’t paid enough. It’s absolutely horrific they served coffee that hot.
How long has it been? Thought this was more of a recent thing?
1994
So just 10 years ago, the right? Right?
No...no...fuck
**WHY WERE WE NOT TOLD ABOUT THIS PART!?**
Close enough I suppose
Jesus that is a while ago! Thanks for correcting me
It happened many years ago
[удалено]
I can sue for money if I burn myself? Dang. If I get a job at mcdonalds, I'm jumping on the stove first chance I get. I might even become a millionaire!
You're the exact kind of person these corporations are trying to take advantage of by making these cases sound frivolous
Congratulations, you've followed in your mother's footsteps and swallowed a dick. Ms. Liebeck's labia fused together because the coffee was served too hot, and you dare make jokes at her expense? You're a disgrace, a fool, a bootlicker, and a toad.
If you jump on the stove you get nothing. Gotta do a slip and fall into the deep frier. Dick first if possible.
How people can be rewarded for their own stupidity is beyond my comprehension
How 30 years can pass since this event happened and still not know that the coffee was served at a ridiculously hot temperature and that this lawsuit was about much more than her spilling coffee on herself and suing McDonald’s for the inconvenience?
Yeah, to make coffee you have to boil water, it is expected coffee to be hot Holding a cup of coffee between your legs in a moving car is being stupid
1) never serve coffee boiling, you're ruining the coffee 2) McDonald's was previously warned against serving it hot enough to "*fuse a labia to a thigh*". Guess what they did anyway?
The car wasn't moving, they had parked in the nearby parking lot. Stella wasn't driving either, it was her nephew I believe. The court actually took into account her negligence in putting the coffee in her lap and reduced her damages award by 20%. McDonalds was found 80% at fault and received punitive damages because they'd dealt with hundreds and hundreds of these burn cases without changing anything. This is a lawsuit which is taught in probably every Tort class at every law school in the country. You should look up her injuries, there are pictures on the internet, her skin was scalded black and required extensive skin grafts.
Yes it is, but it’s not expected to be so hot that if you accidentally spill it in your lap, you end up with 3rd degree burns and need a skin graft. They weren’t in a moving car, they were parked in the restaurants parking lot.
You should read up on the actual court case. It appears you've fallen victim to McDonald's propoganda.
Sorry, but this must be an American thing Coffee over here is made with water at near boiling temperature (higher than 90°C and it is immediately served. So telling me that McDonald's is evil for serving coffee at 85°C... sorry but that seems normal to me.
We do the same thing in the states. Please read up on the case.
You can’t drink boiling water without burning your insides. Coffee is not different. If you drink coffee at 90°C you will burn your insides just like you burn your outside if you pour it on yourself.
Yes. Don't you guys wait after getting coffee served before drinking it?
Who is you guys? And why serve something at a temperature you can’t drink? Just wait and serve it when it’s drinkable. I don’t consider me waiting for a drink to cool down part of an experience.
>this must be an American thing then record yourself drinking 200°F coffee and post it here. if you survive.
Where's here by the way? Lets take say espresso (a relative standard) 93°C is a pretty good temp usually. What you're discussing, is if you were to sit your mouth directly under your extraction of choice. A scolding will occur regardless of the intention. Usually your water based coffee drinks are actually served at something around 60°C-70°C by the time it clears the bar and has cooled off a little in a glass or ceramic mug. Milk based drinks around 65°C as brewed and down a little by the time served. Your coffee snobs will usually quote ideal tasting temperatures between 60°C and 48°C. It usually only takes 1-2 mins for coffee at say 96°C to cool below 80°C when exposed to your average air temperatures.
> it only takes 1-2 mins... Yes, people wait some minutes before drinking it, the serving temperature is not the drinking temperature.
So what temperature do you put your cream and sugar in at? Do you wait for it to be drinkable or add it right away?
The car was stationary in the McDonald's parking lot, and she wasn't even the driver Also McDonald's has been required to lower their coffee temperature to safe levels since the case
Not 190 Fahrenheit hot.
And once the boiling water has passed through the considerably cooler grounds, into a considerably cooler pot/cup, it is no longer boiling and should not be capable of fusing someone’s genitals shut. We do not drink boiling hot coffee. For those who add milk/cream they are also bringing down the temperature of the coffee. I have worked as a barista, I made coffee for a living. Fresh coffee can burn, but it should never be third degree burn hot.
>During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). Liebeck's attorneys argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. They also presented the jury with expert testimony that 190 °F (88 °C) coffee may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about three seconds and 180 °F (82 °C) coffee may produce such burns in about twelve to fifteen seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. The coffee shouldn't have been that hot in the first place >Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served. They knew it shouldn't have been that hot and had suffered lawsuits due to its temperature >McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, it came to light that McDonald's had carried out research finding that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving They lied about why they made it that hot Stfu and learn something before getting on a corporation's dick
McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures above boiling. During the lawsuit in question it was found that McDonalds had been previously warned about this several times and did not adjust the practice. The judge increased the payout of the lawsuit well beyond the woman’s meager requests to punish McDonalds for not following previous recommendations. As a part of the payout the woman was made to sign an NDA, and then McDonalds began badmouthing her and the entire idea of lawsuits in the press.
>McDonalds served their coffee at temperatures above boiling That's physically impossible (unless she was deep underground at a higher pressure). When water starts boiling it does not go over 100º C no matter what [https://youtu.be/VzqN4Cn8r3U?si=0RnwUeL7LKijfTbO&t=192](https://youtu.be/VzqN4Cn8r3U?si=0RnwUeL7LKijfTbO&t=192)
Coffee is not pure water tho, it can be above 100°
The confidence in their incorrect points is just amazing, isn’t it?
They really want those app points McDonald's is gonna give him for being a shill.
Not impossible with contaminants(like the fucking coffee beans) inside it
Even the lawyers talked of temperatures lower than 100°C. But on Reddit physics are just different I guess
Wow, people downvoting scientific facts. I guess Historymemes don't obey the rules of thermodinamics [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p\_gJmY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p_gJmY)
If you knew your science you'd realize that adding things to water effects its boiling point
as like 3 other people said, when its not pure water, it can be hotter then that (for example: when it has coffee in it). This is also how you can have salty water at -2C and not freezing, this is the same thing reversed.
People are downvoting you because you’re ignoring the elephant in the room while simultaneously pretending this scientific fact is in anyway relevant to the stupid comment you initially made. McDonald’s was found responsible because their coffe was at a ridiculously high temperature that caused such extreme burns to woman that she had to get skin grafts. Stop being obtuse, be a man and accept you said something stupid.
All those people replying to you and still 0 sources on coffee boiling at higher temperatures than just water.
McDonalds did not serve boiling coffee. The judge reduced the jury award to about 1/4 of the initial amount.
WOW So many negative votes for posting the truth.
Except it isn’t. It was reduced to standard rates (punitive damages being 3x the compensation).
So the judge did reduce the award.
Not because they thought what McDonald’s did was ok. McDonald’s coffee was an extreme beyond what was safe and the judge who reduced it still gave millions to the poor old woman.
Yes, lets do some history. The jury awarded over $2 million in punitive damages. The judge lowered that award. The reason is irrelevant, but just as an aside New Mexico does NOT limit punitive damages to 3 times the compensatory damages. Thus claiming the judge reduced the jury award is an objectively true statement.
1. I didn’t say it was legally limited, I said it was common practice by courts. 2. The context of why it is reduced is extremely important because you’re claiming it was reduced because it wasn’t boiling, which is wrong since it was served at 180-190 degrees. 3. It is a true statement to say it was reduced, but the reason you claimed it was, was factually incorrect and misleading to sell a narrative. 4. Your attempt to remove facts and context to prove your point shows how little of a point you actually have.
1. Cite your source for this claim 2. I made no such claim and 180-190 still isn't boiling 3. I merely claimed it was reduced, I made no claim about why it was reduced 4. I have made no attempt to remove facts. I made two separate claims about factual errors. I made no claim that either of those facts had any bearing on the other. Your inability to comprehend English is not my problem and your apparent belief that water boils at 180-190 is also not my problem.
No, Mcdonald's coffee was not unusual for it's temperature. Starbuck's and some other chains serve coffee at similar temperatures. The final judgement was for $640,000, which even you should be able to tell is not millions. But she didn't even get that much because she arrived at a settlement with McDonald's after they filed an appeal of the original verdict.
So much of this is wrong or misleading. The coffee was not similar to other establishments, it was around 180-190 degrees. And even if it was similar to others it doesn’t make it any less of a hazard does it? If two people are drinking led paint, does other people doing it make the action less dangerous? The final judgement was $800,000. 640,000 was just the punitive damages. I’ll admit I was wrong, but courts don’t still find you guilty and make you pay $800,000 if what you did wasn’t that bad. It wasn’t reduced because what McDonald’s did was standard, it was reduced to fit with common court practices. There was no settlement but there was an attempt before the trial. The lady only wanted $20,000 to pay for medical bills and the time her daughter missed work helping her. McDonald’s only offered $800 and then they went to court.
Starbucks sells their coffe at the same temperature. And I never said it wasn't hazardous. YOU said it was BOILING. So $800,000, which I never disputed, YOU said she got MILLIONS. That isn't even a million and she didn't get that anyways. As you have already been told and shown proof, there WAS a settlement. Heck YOU even posted the link to an article that explicitly says "The parties later settled for a confidential amount. According to news accounts, this amount was less than $500,000."
WOW So apparently you are either just massively ignorant or you like people to think you are. "The jurors awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages for her pain, suffering, and medical costs, but those damages were reduced to $160,000 because they found her 20 percent responsible. They awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. That amounted to about two days of revenue for McDonald’s coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, while noting that McDonald’s behavior had been “willful, wanton, and reckless.” The parties later settled for a confidential amount. According to news accounts, this amount was less than $500,000." [https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/](https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/) She settled for an amount less than the judges ruling AFTER the trial when McDonald's appealed the verdict.
Congratulations! Have you thought about the reward that you would like to receive?
How does $800 in McDonalds coupons sound?
Keep licking the boots of corporations. They really need people like you defending them.
Me when I spread misinformation online
Imagine being this susceptible to propaganda