
What a lot of people get wrong about the 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit - gscott
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/17/what-a-lot-of-people-get-wrong-about-the-infamous-1994-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-lawsuit.html
======
nekopa
This is a very light treatment of an important case. It didn't go into the
extensive surgery she had, and that her case wasn't for $20K, it was just to
pay for her medical expenses.

Also, though maybe not important in this article, was the logic behind the
jury's award. They placed the award at 2 days worth of McD's nationwide coffee
sales.

But I am glad that they did mention the other 700+ suits filed against McDs,
but they should have gone into a little more depth about how McDs used its
extensive legal department to squash those complaints. A practice that still
continues today.

Edit: And for more interesting reads, check out the Stella Awards site. Now
defunct, it was devoted to finding _really_ stupid law suits, and debunking
urban legend law suits. The quoted aim was to show that there is a real issue
with US law suits, that doesn't need fake "I microwaved my poodle because the
instructions didn't let me know that was bad" to let people know there is an
issue.

I teach lawyers English, and one of my more fun classes is mixing up a bunch
of true and fake lawsuits and watching them try to figure out which is which.

Pro-Tip: The more ridiculous sounding ones are actually real.

Case in point - a couple who lost their 2 year old in a lawnmower accident at
day care found out that the day care only had a $100K insurance policy. So
they dropped the case against the day care center and sued the manufacturer of
the lawn mower.

There was a safety feature that was invented 16 years after the mower was
built that the mower didn't have. No recall statement or after action was
specified by authorities. The jury awarded the couple a $2M award.

~~~
mc32
For me the question isn't about McDonald's being rigid and stubborn and
refusing to pay medical bills for one of their customers. It's "the right
thing to do".

On the other hand, coffee is hot. Coffee aficionados might quibble on the
proper temperature for coffee --but the temp McDonald's served the coffee was
not "wrong".

So, I could see them found guilty of providing an inadequate vessel for the
coffee .. but she burnt herself trying to open the cup and adding sweetener,
or something to that effect. How is that the company's fault?

Granted, if you see one of your customers accidentally hurt themselves, the
humane thing is to help them --but how was McD guilty of contributing to her
injury when we all recognize coffee is a hot substance. When you make it at
home you know you are not to allow it to spill over yourself. I mean, I get
that McD was callous in not wanting to pay her bill. I agree they were callous
but how were they at fault for her injury?

There are many things which are intrinsically unsafe but we mostly operate
safely around such things: gasoline, razor blades, knives, medicines, etc.

Is it believed servers should allow coffee to cool down to a safe temperature
before tendering the drink?

~~~
smileysteve
> when we all recognize coffee is a hot substance.

190 degrees is not at all drinkable (though perfect for out of the brewer) and
McDonalds had already received complaints about it being too hot.

~~~
mc32
So are they supposed to have a "cooling process" to bring the temp down to a
standard temp? If there is no such standards, it kind of leaves things
undefined and perhaps we should have one, although I imagine a few coffee bars
flouting the standard.

The complaints may or may not be relevant, I think because you will have
people complain it's not hot enough, or too hot, etc. and in terms of
proportion to servings served it was a miniscule percentage. Never the less we
all know from experience when we brew at home that coffee is hot. We know to
be careful around the stove or range.

~~~
jartelt
They didn't need a cooling process. The coffee was brewed and left in a pot on
a warmer. They just needed to turn down the temperature on the warmer. They
were literally selling a drink that was hot enough to burn/melt flesh. They
were told this practice was dangerous several times and multiple people were
injured, yet McDonald's still refused to decrease the temperature. Sometimes a
lawsuit is the only way to get a business to stop dangerous behavior.

~~~
basseq
There's so much disinformation on this case. For instance, I was once told
that the McDonald's franchisee was violating even McDonalds policy by keeping
his coffee "even hotter"—because he liked it that way. And that one of the
outcomes of the case was McDonalds removing the temperature control from their
coffee machines to ensure consistency.

I have no idea if that's true, but I suspect not.

------
KindDragon
Adam Ruins Everything - The Truth About the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNWh6Kw3ejQ)

~~~
steveeq1
The other side's point of view:
[http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/](http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/)

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
This is connected to the "U.S. Institute for Legal Reform" which in turn is
connected to "U.S. Chamber of Commerce" who are not good people.

~~~
bb88
The WHOIS for the domain proves him right:

[https://whoislookup.ninja/whois/hotcoffeetruth.com](https://whoislookup.ninja/whois/hotcoffeetruth.com)

    
    
      Registry Registrant ID: 
      Registrant Name: Domain Administrator
      Registrant Organization: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
      Registrant Street: 1615 H Street NW, 
      Registrant City: Washington
      Registrant State/Province: DC
      Registrant Postal Code: 20062
      Registrant Country: US
      Registrant Phone: +1.2026596000
      Registrant Phone Ext: 
      Registrant Fax: 
      Registrant Fax Ext: 
      Registrant Email: @uschamber.com
    

Edited to add: The piece makes the point that the film "Hot Coffee" is
propaganda. I believe that gives me leeway to do the same here.

~~~
Ajedi32
True or not, it's still Ad Hominem. Address the argument, not the organization
making it.

~~~
bluehawk
Yes and no, it's important to know the motivation behind the messages people
are saying.

------
sdevoid
See also: the 2011 documentary film "Hot Coffee" about the case and so called
tort reform in the US legal system.
[http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/](http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/)

~~~
steveeq1
Also be sure to explore "the other side" after watching that movie:
[http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/](http://www.hotcoffeetruth.com/)

I agree there was a lot of bad reporting on this case, and there are a lot of
misconceptions about the case, but I attribute it to bad media than anything
else.

~~~
sdevoid
So these videos are hosted on Youtube by the U.S. Chamber Institute For Legal
Reform, which describes itself as "a national campaign, representing the
nation's business community, with the critical mission of making America's
legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone." The website says "The
views expressed in this (these) videos are solely those of the panelists, and
do not necessarily reflect the positions of the U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform." Yea, but who setup this slick panel and presumably paid these
lawyers, moderator and editors?

Edit: Looking at their _arguments_ in each episode: 1\. Intros and general
reactions and opinions. No direct argument here.

2\. Definition of _tort_ in the film was incorrect, missing the phrase _civil
harm_. This is myopic as the film does go on to explain plenty of complexities
around tort law: negligence, strict liability, punitive damages, etc.

3\. The 700 complaints vs. billions of cups of coffee sold.

4\. Damage caps: the film portrays damages caps as common when they are rare.

5\. Judicial Elections: a) money doesn't only flow from corporations, b) most
judges will be fair regardless of how they were elected, only a few 'bad
apples'

6\. Mandatory arbitration, Franken Amendment: a) amendment didn't change Jones
case b) most arbitration is not around tort claims.

Overall I think it's _surprising_ that all panelists are in agreement on each
issue. :-)

~~~
steveeq1
ad hominem. Attack the arguments presented in the video, not the arguers.

edit: the message that I replied too got heavily edited after the fact.

~~~
sdevoid
It's not ad hominem to point out that these videos are being produced by an
organization that has historically taken one side on the issue of tort reform.

I edited my comment to include the episodes arguments. I'll post my thoughts
here:

3\. The documentary _does cover_ McDonalds scale and the fact that they
received the same complaint at various levels within the corporate offices
(not just franchises) but did nothing. Even a single instance has grounds for
a tort case if McDonalds knew about the problem but did nothing.

4\. This dances around the issue. Nebraska _does have damage caps_ and those
caps are on real damages. The panelists even say that this case is "tragic".
Not sure what more to say...

5\. This is simply Citizen's United vs. FEC a few years earlier. We probably
disagree on this decision. :-) But the film does bring up cases where there is
an _appearance of influence_ thanks to donations.

6\. Again dances around the issue. Regardless of whether the Franken amendment
covers the Jones case, they fail to discuss the problems with _mandatory
arbitration_ which is what the documentary finds to be the most troubling
aspect of these agreements.

None of these 'arguments' really address the concerns that the film raises.
The panel nitpicks on definitions, complains that the film 'missies the point'
because these are rare cases [citation needed], etc.

And again, everyone is in agreement on the panel, which _usually indicates
that the panel was poorly chosen_ , at least if you want an good presentation
of different viewpoints.

------
smtpserver
NY Times also had a retro report on this case:
[https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-
by-...](https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-
then-news-media.html)

------
drvdevd
Read the awesome Too Much Coffee Man version please:
[http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-
lawsuit/](http://www.tmcm.com/tmcm/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit/)

~~~
js2
The epilogue and the last two frames are excellent.

------
gondo
this article seems to only describe what you can see in the video (already
linked in other comments) and does not add any value, apart from
advertisement, but that value doesn't go to the reader.

~~~
toki5
I can't view the video here, so reading the article was valuable to me.

~~~
gondo
sure that happens to me sometimes. but there is always:
[https://lmgtfy.com/?q=youtube+proxy](https://lmgtfy.com/?q=youtube+proxy)

------
steveeq1
Actually, the vast majority of cases where people sued over hot coffee that
was as hot or even hotter than the liebeck case are dismissed as "frivolous".
The liebeck verdict was more of the exception, rather than the rule.

Source (wikipedia):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants)
(in "aftermath" section)

------
jasikpark
Adam Ruins Everything did a video debunking many of the myths about the case.

[https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ](https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ)

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Wasn't that case then used to justify laws making “frivolous” lawsuits harder?

------
evansj
Warning, video / audio starts as soon as the page loads.

------
maxxxxx
I have read about this before and I'd agree that McDonald's were just dicks.
It's sad that this story went through the press and nobody ever bothered
looking a little closer.

------
torgoguys
I read the article, but can't watch the video right now, so perhaps this is
adressed there, but what I don't understand is why selling coffee at 190
degrees should make you liable for people's handling of a known hot product.
Heck, if I sell you 212 degree water and it is no secret that it is super hot,
what did I do wrong?

Or what about if I sell you coffee at the lower temperatures McDonald's now
sells coffee at, and you spill it over a newborn's delicate skin causing
severe damage.

Please help me understand the other side of the story.

~~~
anigbrowl
No. This story has been circulating for 22 years now, there is more than
enough information for you to find it on your own. I've literally spent two
decades explaining it to people and at this point 'please explain it to me'
requests come off as being asked in bad faith.

~~~
ploxiln
"please explain it to me" is almost rhetorical - what is there to explain? Was
it molten salt, or some other substance besides water? Was it really plain
honest H2O just below the natural boiling point at that altitude? How could
there possibly be anything to explain? Thus the virality of this story -
simple and understandable by anybody.

Your explanation is "the injuries were _so bad_ and McDonald's was _so mean_ "
but that should not be a legal justification.

Oh, so the woman was being reasonable, just wanted McDonald's to pay her
medical bills - no, that's not reasonable either. I can't buy $1 bag of candy
and then get my dentistry bills paid by the manufacturer, even if it was
"closer to 100% sugar than is reasonable". Yeah, no metaphor will be exactly
the same, but the situation is clear. Here's another one: someone buys a
kitchen knife, and then cuts off their finger. Manufacturer has to pay? I'm
sure some people in this vast country have said "man these knives are way too
sharp" while the manufacturer says "our customers want the knives to be
sharp".

McDonald's sold coffee near the boiling point. It was not defective or
misleading. Something very unfortunate happened. And here in America _someone_
has to pay for it! But that's not actually fair. If you really want this
unfortunate woman to have her medical expenses paid for, have your government
give her the money, sharing in the expense via your taxes.

~~~
anigbrowl
_Your explanation is "the injuries were so bad and McDonald's was so mean" but
that should not be a legal justification._

I've declined to explain it. Do not project your straw man arguments onto me.

