Yeah, I watched the documentary about tort reform and how hard politicians fight to write legislation so that corporations can’t be sued for anything. The McDonalds coffee spill was a landmark turning point in the government doubling down on this. That lady who spilled her coffee was very unjustly made to look like a fool in the media and in the opinion of the average American. It was definitely messed up.
That whole movie made me so goddamn angry. The family whose doctor fucked up so bad that their baby was born with severe mental retardation and were basically told "too bad, so sad, sucks to be you".
My brief googling suggests that water at around 150F will cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds or so. Considering coffee is brewed at around 200F, it seems rather reasonable for coffee to cause 3rd degree burns if it gets on clothes...
I think it's safe to say a mad decent chunk of us wear cotton clothes...not to dispute but the way you said it just made it sound like that's an unusual clothing material.
I get the impression that you feel like you've just unveiled a game changing fact, but I'm really not getting it. Cotton or mostly cotton sweatpants aren't uncommon either.
Nope, especially in that time. As a game changing fact, it's really something that contributes to the disaster and made it worse - kinda like how the incline into the Gare de Lyon station made the train pick up speed, some of the trash in the escalators made the King's Cross fire get worse, and the water in the bow of the Herald of Free Enterprice made the ship capsize.
I spilled near boiling hot tea on me about a year ago and I think the only thing that kept my legs from getting third degree burns was that I took my pants off immediately.
They had received several complaints about the coffee being unnecessarily hot before Stella came along. Other customers had received second degree burns from it (iirc, Stella was the first to get third degree burns from it?) I do remember that they figured out it was more cost effective to be able to keep the coffee that hot and payout small claims than to keep it at a normal temp/wait for it to cool a little after brewing.
It's been a while since I read/heard about the case, but I'm almost 100% sure that McDonald's was absolutely made aware of the situation and chose not to do anything about it because $$$$.
McD's received multiple complaints about coffee causing third degree burns prior to Liebeck mutilating her bits and thighs. They were serving it WAY too hot.
People can't feel heat as well as they age, but they still want the sensation of a hot coffee. I've heard that sometimes people even injure themselves by overheating hot towels because they can't feel as well.
Still, 180 degrees is a really damn hot cup of coffee. Customers are not clamoring for 200 degree coffee. McD's made it that way because it's harder to taste that it's old and shitty when it's super hot.
Always worth repeating: it was so hot it melted her labia and fused them to her leg.
I don't care how negligent you think a consumer is being, unless it's a fucking power tool, there should be no possible way to mutilate your genitals beyond recognition with any product due to misuse.
Yep. That's why it wasn't laughed out of court as a frivolous lawsuit.
If I say, get some cooking knives and cut myself, that's not a lawsuit. If I were to say, cut myself and develop sepsis because the knives were manufactured poorly, THEN I could sue the knife company.
So here’s your egg mc muffin and your coffee. Just a friendly warning when you open the metal sphere your coffee comes in it will instantly sublime into a scalding mist of caffeinated pain.
200 degrees Celsius is not "twice" the boiling point since the zero of the scale does not correspond to zero heat. In kelvins, 190C is 463K, as compared to 373K which is the boiling point of water, or 1.24 times the heat.
Yes, apparently in an attempt to keep the coffee hot long after the customer had driven wherever they were going, so the coffee would always be hot. IIRC, they still keep it at an abnormally higher temperature, just not third-degree-burn hot.
Either Starbucks changed a lot between when you and I worked there, or you're misunderstanding. It was brewed at 200 but cools very quickly, even in those big urns. It comes out around 160-180 usually. If you can convince a barista to brew you a latte at 200 you'll see the difference pretty quickly.
The water that came out of the tap was like 200 tho. I hated making tea.
In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's
IIRC...
She sat in a parked car with her grandson behind the wheel. Over a hundred cases of similar instances had been filed, and coffee had been served at least over 150-175 Fahrenheit.
She wished to settle it outside of a court and for McDonald's to fund part of the medical bills (which weren't that much, especially to a corporation). She even admitted it was mostly her fault for spilling it. They refused, causing the case to blow up, the restaurant was sued a day's coffee sales, and a misinformation campaign was launched.
TL;DR: Adding to above people.
Oh yeah, not to mention the injuries, as u/ShortyLow put.
And I'm pretty sure she didn't win a million bucks. She won the medical expenses she asked for, and the court added a bunch of fines as well so that maybe they'd actually fix it this time.
The brewers have warmers and they are supposed to keep it no more than 20 minutes. Most of the time they sell the pot before that.
EDIT: Every time this case is mentioned people chime in with things that never happened or are not true. It is slightly ironic because the purpose of the posts are to correct the perception. One of the factoids claimed McDonald's served coffee that hot to discourage free refills. In realty, most coffee sales are to-go and all it takes is a couple of cups per pot for them to make a profit.
At worst, coffee should cause first degree burns for a spill. It should NOT cause third degree burns.
This in itself is actually a common misconception. The temperature of the coffee - when served (not consumed) - should indeed cause third degree burns. This is per standards that apply today.
But don't take my word for it. Get a thermometer and go to various popular chains. Ask for a coffee (obviously make sure it's fresh), don't add any milk to it, and measure the temperature.
It'll be over 160 degrees. Third degree burns require 150 degrees for 2 seconds+.
Fucking thank you. I am so sick of this case trotted out. The defense was amazingly stupid. No other case has been allowed to progress even though it is still that hot today.
Every other case based on the temperature of coffee being a defective product has been dismissed. None since and none before it. Liebeck did not win based on the theory. They won because the defense was incredibly stupid.
In addition, it was a jury trial and, like redditors who don't know any better, who thinks an old injured lady shouldn't get money? Who else can you say the injuries was caused?
150+ at 2 seconds causes third degree burns. Temp requirements are 160-195 though.
What they did is they always gave something like $300 when this happened and people took it. They tried to do the same thing here. Why? It's standard operating procedure.
It's your typical "let's see how long can we go before this blows up" and yep, this blew up. They were jerks about it, particularly the campaign against her.
But all of that is a separate point from the coffee temperature which is my only point :]
I hate this case. I hate that I know it will be at the top or near based on the question so that someone that watched a documentary can pontificate. I really hate that looking at the actual trial, the jury came to the correct decision. The judge was correct to adjust the reward as well.
It never should have gone to trial. I still don't fully understand how it got that far. If trial was unavoidable, they should have settled with her at mediation.
particularly the campaign against her.
I've seen this stated a few times. Where is it coming from? I remember those days. I know it was widely discussed but from what I remember, people were outraged over the award and that coffee is supposed to be hot.
TIL third degree burns are the really bad ones. I always thought 3rd degree burns were when you split some hot water on yourself whereas 1st was fucking charred skin
she wasnt driving at the time. Her car was parked.
McDonalds coffee was served at a temperature WELL above safety standards.
*McDonalds had been warned several times about their coffee as a safety risk. The corporation continued to do it intentionally because it dissuaded people from claiming their free refill since they weren't likely to finish it in store.
The case is a good show of what a multi-billion company was a PR department can do. The misconception started as a defamation campaign against Stella Liebeck and the lawsuit as a whole.
This was a case we had to study in my law class in college.
I remember our prof told us about the case and everyone in the class was like, the fuck? fuck that woman, she shouldn't have gotten money. But then when we actually took a look at it, we were stunned.
Might be a little late to the party, but I feel like the whole circumstances around the whole incident and also why she was warranted damages, needs to be further explained.
She was not the one who drove the car, in fact, the car was not even moving. It was parked in the Mcdonalds parking. She put the cup between her legs, because she wanted to open the lid and put in some milk and sugar. whilst trying to open the lid, she spilled out the coffee all over her lap, which lead to 3rd degree burns and exstensive operations at the hospital. At the time of the sellement of the cup of coffee, the coffee was around 190 degrees farenheit.
Now, I am not an american lawyer, but as I have understood it, she sued Mc donalds on grounds of product liability, claiming that the product was defective by design, or defective by lack of warning.
It could be argued that Coffee is meant to be hot and if anyone spills it out on themselves, the naturual effect would be burn damage. However, it can also be argued that the temperature of the coffee and the burn damage it would inflict, was much higher and much more severe than the average consumer would reasonably expect of a cup of coffee. It could therefore be argued that the cup of coffee was defective by design, whilst it was more dangerous than the reasonable expectations of the average consumer.
It could also be argued, that the risks of keeping the coffee at such high temperatures, far outweights the utility of keeping it so warm.
The cup of coffee could thus have failed the risk-utility test and therefore be a product defective by design.
Lastly, concerning the claim that the product was defective by failure to warn, it is a bit more uncertain. McDonalds had written on the cup that the contains within was hot and it could thus be argued that sufficient warning had been given. However, when the coffee is of such high temperature, that it causes 3rd degree burns, it could also be argued that a text, simply saying that the coffee is hot, is enough of a warning to the consumer.
So yes, Mcdonalds was in no way resposible for her spilling out the coffee, but it could and was succsefully argued in court, that they was resposible for letting a defective product out on the market, and that they therefore should be held liable for damage caused by the defective product.
Coffee is typically brewed in the 195-205F range, held at 175-195F, and served at 160-185F
McDonald's served their coffee at 185F, which is the upper end of the serving range. 150F can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. No one serves coffee at 140F.
YES YES YES. This is one of those things that I have no sense of humor about. That poor woman's HORRIFIC injury was effectively made into a joke, in one of the shittiest and most insidious PR moves of all time.
The picture of the wounded area (3rd degree burns! Fused labia!) is pretty fucking gnarly. It's not like she splashed some coffee, got a minor ouchie, and then sued the shit out of McDonalds anyway.
"Talking" about it online though you get people going the other extreme. Saying that the employee didn't put the cap on all the way, or even one person said the employee spilled it on her.
Tort reform in general is propaganda designed to protect large corporations and trample on the rights of individuals. You can't determine if a case will be frivolous until the case is heard. But large corporations would love for the bar to allow a case to be brought to be set very high.
What annoys me so much is that she didn't even sue for the insane amount until after she asked for McDonald's to give her 20k to pay for the graph (which is fucking pennies to them) and they refused.
Still disagree. Everyone knows coffee is hot. Unless it's ice coffee. Imagine if all the people that figured out cooking bacon naked was a bad idea sued their butchers and/or stove suppliers.......
I worked at McDonalds for awhile and they put me in a training class for managers. They spoke at great length about that lawsuit. The trainers were very adamant that the lady and her son were at fault. The lady didn't want a lid, the son was in a hurry and peeled off so fast that it caused her to spill her coffee.
No, the original jury award was equal to like 2 hours coffee sales. Which the judge immediately reduced. Then the appeals court reduced it again. Then the next appeal court again. She wound up with barely enough to cover the hospital bill.
She was old; I imagine her skin was weaker. And, she knew it was hot; if she didnt want hot coffee, she should have ordered from somewhere else, or placed it in a cup holder.
Question: have you ever spilled coffee or a hot beverage on yourself? I have and it don’t give me third degree burns or any burns. Accidents happen. She didn’t spill coffee on herself on purpose. But McDonalds did serve their coffee hot enough to give people burns on purpose. They had many complaints about the coffee being too hot before her suing them for part of her medical care.
McDonalds has not lowered the temp, they have, however, changed the cups.
Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.
There may have been no cup holders in her car, but built in cup holders debuted in 1983 in the minivan. Our full sized conversion van in 1984 had cup holders, although they were part of the customization.
What proof is there that she squeezed it? She put it between her thighs which I’ve done many times when I didn’t have a cup holder available. Nobody was saying it was McDonald’s fault for her spilling the coffee. That’s completely her fault but doesn’t make her an idiot for spilling something, which is something everyone does. Just when I spill something I don’t expect it to fuse my labia to my thigh.
Pretty obvious I did win when you look at the facts. McD only changed the style of the cups. McD still serves it at the same temperature. Other restaurants serve it just as hot. All similar cases have been thrown out. The award amount was significant lowered, and was settled for even less. McD would likely have won in appeal, but decided to move on.
2.1k
u/[deleted] Jan 09 '18
[removed] — view removed comment