Thread: Switch hitters need not apply.

It wasn't a question of serving hot vs. lukewarm coffee. Rather, it was a question of McDonald's serving coffee at a temperature close to the boiling point, which is hot enough to cause 2nd-3rd degree burns, vs hot that is hot, but not dangerously so. If the coffee was hot enough to cause serious burns to the woman's genitalia (ouch! double ouch!!) it was also hot enough to cause similar burns to one's mouth/tongue/throat tissues. I remember getting coffee from McDonald's years ago, and you always had to let it cool off before you could drink it. As was pointed out by others, McDonald brewed and served their coffee back then at very high temperatures not because consumers wanted to drink coffee hot enough to sear the skin off their lips, but because they were able to extract more coffee per pound of beans and therefore made more money. And they had been repeatedly warned about the danger of doing so That they chose to ignore the warnings was one of the reasons they were hit with punitive damages when they forced the case to go to trial. And BTW-the jury award was significantly reduced on appeal. Anyone hear willing to take "X" amount of dollars in exchange for having 2nd-3rd degree burns to their groin area?
And as far as the post about the burglar who sued--that's not a true story. It's one of those internet urban legends that's often packaged with the McDonald's story under the title of "Stella Awards" (the plaintiff in the McDonald's case was named Stella), purportedly a collection of outrageous lawsuits designed to highlight absurdities in our judicial system.

Only problem: most if not all of the "cases" cited in the "Stella Awards" are untrue.
Best to fact check them first before quoting them....

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well, yes, but what's the alternative?
Serving lukewarm coffee to appease the people who want to be insulated from life? Some things in our daily lives have the potential to hurt us. It is our own responsibility to make sure that they don't.

If I buy a hammer and hit on my fingers, the hardware store is not to blame.
Same if the hammer were an axe. It is understood that buy buying the axe, I take responsibility for using it. Come to think of it, it's the same when using a straight razor. If you buy one and cut yourself, you can't hold dovo accountable.

Imo, if you buy coffee, you know it will be hot enough to hurt you. If it then does, it is a bit lame to hold McD accountable. Yes, they were warned that their product was very hot. But that doesn't change the fact that coffee should be like that. They put a number of coffee experts on the stand who testified that indeed, coffee should be that hot. But to no avail.

If the team is truly "private", it can admit and exclude whomever it wants, even if its choices are based on discriminatory/bigoted criteria. If the team is not truly private, its ability to set up membership rules based upon discriminatory criteria is circumscribed by law.
The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization (some have tried to argue otherwise, but the courts have so far disagreed, I believe) and it therefore can refuse admission to those who don't comply with their membership criteria, including gays. Same with the Catholic Church-it's a private organization not funded by taxpayer dollars and therefore has unfettered discretion over who it wants to admit or exclude.
Does the dichotomy between between truly private vs. public organizations lead to litigation in instances where it is unclear or disputed as to whether they are indeed private or public? Sure. But tell me: what other mechanism exists in this country to resolve this type of dispute if the parties can't otherwise agree? And although it might take a court case to resolve this particular matter, the court's decision (or possibly the final appellate ruling, if needed) will resolve the dispute for a host of other similarly-situated matters, eliminating the need for them to file separate lawsuits.
Just my 2 cents...

Originally Posted by JMS

Local News | Bisexual men sue gay group, claim bias | Seattle Times Newspaper

Okay, I read this story and I laughed my arse off but the story begs the question as to how far we let this sort of thing go. I mean that this really puts the cherry on the litigious cake don't you think.

This quote here really caught my attention:

Do you think the Boy Scouts could say this? How about the Catholic church?
Hey, I want to start my own all white, all men, all heterosexual club. Lets see how far that will go.

All responses to the story and or my question are welcome.

BillyJeff2 need not reply
Just teasing Billy!

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

It wasn't a question of serving hot vs. lukewarm coffee. Rather, it was a question of McDonald's serving coffee at a temperature close to the boiling point, which is hot enough to cause 2nd-3rd degree burns, vs hot that is hot, but not dangerously so. If the coffee was hot enough to cause serious burns to the woman's genitalia (ouch! double ouch!!) it was also hot enough to cause similar burns to one's mouth/tongue/throat tissues. I remember getting coffee from McDonald's years ago, and you always had to let it cool off before you could drink it. As was pointed out by others, McDonald brewed and served their coffee back then at very high temperatures not because consumers wanted to drink coffee hot enough to sear the skin off their lips, but because they were able to extract more coffee per pound of beans and therefore made more money. And they had been repeatedly warned about the danger of doing so That they chose to ignore the warnings was one of the reasons they were hit with punitive damages when they forced the case to go to trial. And BTW-the jury award was significantly reduced on appeal. Anyone hear willing to take "X" amount of dollars in exchange for having 2nd-3rd degree burns to their groin area?
And as far as the post about the burglar who sued--that's not a true story. It's one of those internet urban legends that's often packaged with the McDonald's story under the title of "Stella Awards" (the plaintiff in the McDonald's case was named Stella), purportedly a collection of outrageous lawsuits designed to highlight absurdities in our judicial system.

Only problem: most if not all of the "cases" cited in the "Stella Awards" are untrue.
Best to fact check them first before quoting them....

Fair enough. That's a much better, and more mature, argument against McDonald's than I've seen so far. I still feel most of the fault lies with the person who spilled the coffee, but I can also see the points against McDonald's. Always could (well, at least after reading the precis contained in the link), but it still strikes me as the person who spilled, rather than the entity's which provided, responsibility. Perhaps my response was a knee-jerk reaction against a nanny-state mentality. I realize that wasn't the case here, but so many things seem to be. Oh, well...people won't agree on everything. Certainly the jury was in possession of more facts in this case than I was, so it would be improper of me, who is not, to second guess them.

Originally Posted by Joe Chandler

Fair enough. That's a much better, and more mature, argument against McDonald's than I've seen so far. I still feel most of the fault lies with the person who spilled the coffee, but I can also see the points against McDonald's. Always could (well, at least after reading the precis contained in the link), but it still strikes me as the person who spilled, rather than the entity's which provided, responsibility. Perhaps my response was a knee-jerk reaction against a nanny-state mentality. I realize that wasn't the case here, but so many things seem to be. Oh, well...people won't agree on everything. Certainly the jury was in possession of more facts in this case than I was, so it would be improper of me, who is not, to second guess them.

A lot of folks agree with you, Joe, in terms of who's more responsible in this type of situation. We saw that play-out quite vigorously in the cigarette litigation cases, where the parties argued about whether the plaintiffs knew/should have known smoking was dangerous despite the label warnings or industry denials about there being a link between smoking and the increased risk of cancer.
The thing about the McDonald's case, or any factually analogous case, is that McDonalds was in the business of selling its coffee, and selling it 'to go", and knew full well its customers would need to "juggle" their coffee in some manner in order to be able to drink and drive at the same time. So while it's certainly true to say its customers knew they were buying hot coffee, McDonalds also knew what they were selling, and how their product was going to be used/handled. And I think that's the prime reason the jury for that case ruled the way they did--they felt McDonald's should not have been selling coffee that was capable of causing severe burns to their customers when it could have sold coffee that was still "hot" --just not "scalding hot". Again-the key here is that McDonald's knew how its to-go coffee would be handled, and could have reduced if not eliminated the danger to its customers very easily.

just my 3 cents...

A good three cents . Makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not quite. Coffee should be served scalding hot. If that women was stupid enough to put scalding hot coffee between her legs, then she had it coming. And I don't blame MickyD for not wanting to mediate. If she had had integrity, she would have sued for damages, not for a big lottery style 'never have to work again' paycheck for something that was caused by her own stupidity.

while I don't think this justifies the decision. There are some of the smarter people in the room, who say that the decision was not based on her problem, she was just (the opposite of colateral damage) so colateral reward to McDonalds. They say that McDonalds was leaving their coffee superhot, because it allowed for longer freshness. And some other deceptive practices. So this was a way to reap retrobution for some other problems...

The only thing I have to say about coffe is that is best brewed at 180 degrees. I used to like mcdonalds coffee. It is no longer as good and tasty, no matter what machines they have installed, it just lacks the flavor it used to have.

Can I sue that women for making McDonalds obey the law and sell substandard coffee?

When I make my coffee it is brewed at 180 or thereabouts, I've checked.

You are certainly free to brew your coffee at whatever temperature you darn well please. Just be careful if you put it up for sale to people who you know will be driving with it in their hand and maybe their lap since you know it could cause serious burns...(hot, but not scalding hot, coffee)

Originally Posted by Wildtim

The only thing I have to say about coffe is that is best brewed at 180 degrees. I used to like mcdonalds coffee. It is no longer as good and tasty, no matter what machines they have installed, it just lacks the flavor it used to have.

Can I sue that women for making McDonalds obey the law and sell substandard coffee?

When I make my coffee it is brewed at 180 or thereabouts, I've checked.

Well, some people like me like their coffee like that. If it is not hot enough to blister, it will get too cold before I get to the bottom of the cup. I want it to slowly get to the drinking temperature so that I can sip off from the top at a temperature that stays just below blistering.

Sure, you can argue that McDonalds had been warned, but they could have argued that that is how they wanted to server their coffee. After all, imo it is not a crime to sell products that can blister.

If I take a huge bite out of a freshly baked pizza and the bubbling cheese blisters my mouth, that is my fault and not that of the person baking it. Suppose I warn the owner that his pizza is hot and can cause burns, does that put him under obligation of selling lukewarm pizzas in order to prevent others from getting burned?

Btw his motivation for selling hot pizza is irrelevant. Whether it is more profitable or not, some people will like it that way, and it is not unreasonable to expect it to be hot. Therefore I don't think the owner is under any obligation to act upon the complaints.

To reply to the topic: I think it would be better if lawyers just got paid instead of getting a percentage of the winnings. that kind thing is illegal here.

I do think there needs to be an element of common sense to life in general. If the coffee had been lukewarm or cold, she'd have taken it back to the store.

And I dont see why we need to run our society to cater for the lowest common denominator at all times. If we keep this up, all the knives will be plastic, there'll be padding on every hard service and cars will be limited to a walking pace, just in case someone hurts themselves.

After all, if a company can be liable for millions for serving coffee thats "too hot", then any other company can be liable for serving food or drinks that are too hot. What about razors? Can they be "too sharp"? Should Feather be liable because new shavette users cut themselves?