NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently going through the old archives of "This modern World" and came across this.
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1995/95-04-05-McDonald's-coffee.gif
(http://www.thismodernworld.com/)It seems that the whole hot coffee mcdonalds thing wasn't such an outrage after all...

I was recently going through the old archives of "This modern World" and came across this.
*schnipp-schnapp*
It seems that the whole hot coffee mcdonalds thing wasn't such an outrage after all...Reduced to what?

I was recently going through the old archives of "This modern World" and came across this.
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1995/95-04-05-McDonald's-coffee.gif
It seems that the whole hot coffee mcdonalds thing wasn't such an outrage after all...
Not compared to the Hot Coffee GTA thing.

Actually, that's a total misnomer. In the UK it was a storm in a teacup. Life went on. In the US... oh dear...

And even with that information, we need to remember that that person spilled hot coffee in her own damn lap. McDonald's employees didn't dump a pot of hot coffee on her.

I always thought it was strange there was so little fuss about the Hot coffee thing in the UK. Damn that Hilary Clinton.

And even with that information, we need to remember that that person spilled hot coffee in her own damn lap. McDonald's employees didn't dump a pot of hot coffee on her.
And the people who made those defective cribs that strangled infants didn't kidnap the kids and put them in there themselves, but that doesn't make them any less liable. We do tend to hold people liable for defects in their products. Spilling coffee is not some freak accident, but a fairly common event. It then stands to reason that coffee should not be given to people in cars when it is hot enough to give third degree burns. That's irresponsible.

It's impossible to get third degree burns from hot coffee. In a third degree burn there is charring on the skin. That requires substantially higher temperaturs than can be present in watery substances.

It then stands to reason that coffee should not be given to people in carsI propose we stop the sentence there..
Drinking and driving is a bad combination anyway ;) And even spilling a cold beverage will distract people enough to cause car accidents.

So... we're now relying on a comic strip for our facts?

There's a reason the Stella Awards are out there.

Let me make this crystal clear:

You do not deserve to sue people because you are dumb.

If you buy a gun and point it in your face and pull the trigger, you do not deserve to sue the manufacturer. It's not his fault you are so dumb.

If you try to dry off your cuddly-fluffy-kitten-thing in a microwave, you do not deserve to sue the manufacturer. It's not his fault you are so dumb.

If you buy a triple-size uberburger of doom every single day and refuse to exercise, you do not deserve to sue the manufacturer. It's not his fault you are so dumb.

If your child plays Postal N+1 and then shoots/stabs/whatever his classmate, you do not deserve to sue the manufacturer. It's not his fault you and your son are so dumb.

Do I need to continue this?

It's impossible to get third degree burns from hot coffee. In a third degree burn there is charring on the skin. That requires substantially higher temperaturs than can be present in watery substances.

And before this gets lost, quoted for emphasis.

So... we're now relying on a comic strip for our facts?

There's a reason the Stella Awards are out there.

And the Stella awards are automatically more reliable than a comic? Perhaps you could tell us why this is.

And the Stella awards are automatically more reliable than a comic? Perhaps you could tell us why this is.
It's based on a beer...

Liasia']It's based on a beer...

Oh...well....beer, forget I said anything then.

I'm pretty sure it was named after a woman named stella though who won the first stella award.

edit:d'oh, the woman who spilled the coffee over herself is named stella, its named after her.

My point is, people repeatedly, continuously sue for retarded reasons.

That's the whole point of tort reform:

You will not be able to sue unless you can claim the manufacturer provided a faulty product, violated an agreement, or broke the law. Currently this is not the case.

Today, there has been repeated cases of people suing manufacturers without even claiming any of the above.

Oh...well....beer, forget I said anything then.

I'm pretty sure it was named after a woman named stella though who won the first stella award.
Oh well. She was probably drunk anyway.

And the Stella awards are automatically more reliable than a comic? Perhaps you could tell us why this is.

Possibly because they actually cite source material.

Let me make this crystal clear:

You do not deserve to sue people because you are dumb.

If your child plays Postal N+1 and then shoots/stabs/whatever his classmate, you do not deserve to sue the manufacturer. It's not his fault you and your son are so dumb.

Do I need to continue this?

Aside from the fact that people don't kill people because of a video game. They were already screwed up to begin with.


Now I think all the lawsuits like this are idiotic. That hot cofee shit is was started all those damn lawsuits.

Possibly because they actually cite source material.

I just looked at the stella awards site and i dont see any. The comic seems to be quite accurate though, third degree burns and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Corporation

Aside from the fact that people don't kill people because of a video game. They were already screwed up to begin with.


That doesn't stop people from suing. I believe people sued ID Software on such grounds.


I just looked at the stella awards site and i dont see any

The people who are on their email list do get quoted sources and such like.

As for Stella: Yes. The lawsuit was ridiculous. The extent of her injury does not mean she did not cause it herself.

Let me make this crystal clear:

You do not deserve to sue people because you are dumb.

If you buy a gun and point it in your face and pull the trigger, you do not deserve to sue the manufacturer. It's not his fault you are so dumb.So what if you point it at a target and pull the trigger, but because of a fault in the gun the grip heats up and burns your hands (by the way, I know that's probably not possible, but bear with me.)

So what if you point it at a target and pull the trigger, but because of a fault in the gun the grip heats up and burns your hands (by the way, I know that's probably not possible, but bear with me.)

WhaT I'm talking about is suing people where it's REALLY obvious that the product was not at fault.

So if the gun blows up, etc., you would still be allowed to sue under the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Protection Act.

But if, say, you pointed a revolver at someone and pulled the trigger, you would not be able to say the manufacturer made a faulty revolver by not making a safety in it or some shit like that.

I just looked at the stella awards site and i dont see any. The comic seems to be quite accurate though, third degree burns and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_CorporationI guess this is one of those instance where wiki is inaccurate. Wikipedia itself even says third degree burns involve charring of the skin, and that's simply not possible with hot coffee. Not unless you heat it to a plasma (meaning it ceases to be coffee)

Here's what it says about the lady, in detail:

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

I guess this is one of those instance where wiki is inaccurate. Wikipedia itself even says third degree burns involve charring of the skin, and that's simply not possible with hot coffee. Not unless you heat it to a plasma (meaning it ceases to be coffee)

Wiki said that she split the coffee onto cotton trousers which soaked it all up and then held it against her skin for a minute and a half. Given that she was 79 and that the coffee was near boiling (180-190F) I'd have thought that would be enough.

How is the charring level relevant?

The question is, who is at fault.

The question is, who is at fault.Well, considering coffee is suppose to be drank at temperatures in excess of 180 degree fahrentheit. Not McDonalds.
I would qualify it as an accident, and no one is at fault.

How is the charring level relevant?


Cause you wrote this:
It's impossible to get third degree burns from hot coffee. In a third degree burn there is charring on the skin. That requires substantially higher temperaturs than can be present in watery substances.And before this gets lost, quoted for emphasis.

And I dont see any sources on that page of the stella awards, thought you said there were some.

And I dont see any sources on that page of the stella awards, thought you said there were some.

No, I said the Stella Awards organisation quotes sources in their email releases, which is indeed true. Go and sign up on their email list if you wish to verify.

No, I said the Stella Awards organisation quotes sources in their email releases, which is indeed true. Go and sign up on their email list if you wish to verify.

Well you didnt say they only came from email addresses. I just got their first email, it only has links to their site. So if you have them, maybe you can provide a link to show where the comic is wrong? I presume the only reason you dont like the comic is because its factually wrong.

Well you didnt say they only came from email addresses. I just got their first email, it only has links to their site. So if you have them, maybe you can provide a link to show where the comic is wrong? I presume the only reason you dont like the comic is because its factually wrong.

No, there is the bit where it opposes tort reform.

Even if everything in it is factually right, it still doesn't mean the woman deserves a dime from McD.

No, there is the bit where it opposes tort reform.

Even if everything in it is factually right, it still doesn't mean the woman deserves a dime from McD.
Personally I see what they did as similer to hosing down a concrete floor in the winter, and letting it set up. Sure, they didn't make anyone walk on it, but because of their own defect, an injury occured.

Personally I see what they did as similer to hosing down a concrete floor in the winter, and letting it set up. Sure, they didn't make anyone walk on it, but because of their own defect, an injury occured.

They sold a woman a cup of coffee with a lid on it. She removed the lid and spilled it on herself. I'll bet anything it wasnt the first time she had coffee. Odds are she liked hot coffee. How should McDonalds have prevented her from harming herself?

Okay, looks like there's a few facts no one here is aware of. Most people think that all McDonalds'(and other fast food restaurants) changed after this was putting "HOT!" labels on the coffee cups. Not true. See, before this case, the coffee cups weren't made of foam that insulates the heat. They were made of the same material as any other cup you get at a fast food place. Believe me, those normal cups can't keep your hand from heating up. Everytime I pour chili for someone at Wendy's I almost drop the chili cup because the thing gets so hot. And coffee is even hotter than chili. People typically brace themselves for the heat, but she probably wasn't ready when it was handed to her at the time. She was seventy-nine, after all, with poor reflexes and an inability to withstand extreme temperatures that we young people are able to manage. So, yes, it was negligent on the part of McDonald's for not placing the coffee in decent cups.

They sold a woman a cup of coffee with a lid on it. She removed the lid and spilled it on herself. I'll bet anything it wasnt the first time she had coffee. Odds are she liked hot coffee. How should McDonalds have prevented her from harming herself?
They should have done what they have done since, which is not heating their coffee to the point where the injuries she incurred were plausable. They still serve hot coffee, just not coffee that is so hot it can give you third degree burns.

They should have done what they have done since, which is not heating their coffee to the point where the injuries she incurred were plausable. They still serve hot coffee, just not coffee that is so hot it can give you third degree burns.

No they dont. McDonalds now serves coffee thats damned near tepid. Its total crap.

Okay, looks like there's a few facts no one here is aware of. Most people think that all McDonalds'(and other fast food restaurants) changed after this was putting "HOT!" labels on the coffee cups. Not true. See, before this case, the coffee cups weren't made of foam that insulates the heat. They were made of the same material as any other cup you get at a fast food place. Believe me, those normal cups can't keep your hand from heating up. Everytime I pour chili for someone at Wendy's I almost drop the chili cup because the thing gets so hot. And coffee is even hotter than chili. People typically brace themselves for the heat, but she probably wasn't ready when it was handed to her at the time. She was seventy-nine, after all, with poor reflexes and an inability to withstand extreme temperatures that we young people are able to manage. So, yes, it was negligent on the part of McDonald's for not placing the coffee in decent cups.

She pulled the lid off the cup before pouring it upon her lap. 79 years olg also means this wasnt her first rodeo with coffee. Or hot liquid. I'll bet she had even boiled water before. Id say a 6 year old shouldnt be trusted with hot coffee. A 79 year old should know better.

She pulled the lid off the cup before pouring it upon her lap. 79 years olg also means this wasnt her first rodeo with coffee. Or hot liquid. I'll bet she had even boiled water before. Id say a 6 year old shouldnt be trusted with hot coffee. A 79 year old should know better.
I'm not saying that she shouldn't have exercised more common sense. I'm saying that such an accident could have--and probably would have--happened to anyone. The changes made were necessary. I just wish it didn't take a bloody lawsuit to do it. I hate lawsuits. I hate this one especially for being a necessary evil.

I propose we stop the sentence there..
Drinking and driving is a bad combination anyway ;) And even spilling a cold beverage will distract people enough to cause car accidents.

What about smoking? The end of those little buggers is more than hot enough to distract your attention from the road if you accidentally drop it in your lap. Not to mention the image of yourself singing soprano if you can't keep your shorts from catching fire... :eek:

... McDonalds ... coffee .... Its total crap.

So, nothing's changed then.

So, nothing's changed then.
Wendy's coffee is pretty good. Certainly better that McDonald's, anyway.

...the fact that I work at Wendy's has not influanced my opinion in the slightest...

Wendy's coffee is pretty good. Certainly better that McDonald's, anyway.

...the fact that I work at Wendy's has not influanced my opinion in the slightest...


So, are you planning to win some kind of "employee of the month" award by suggesting they use ... McDonalds ... coffee .... Its total crap. as an advertising slogan?

If you do, throw a tenner my way and I'll never mention where you got the idea. :p

So, are you planning to win some kind of "employee of the month" award by suggesting they use as an advertising slogan?

If you do, throw a tenner my way and I'll never mention where you got the idea. :p
Hahaha. As amusing as that would be, Wendy's would never do it, and I'd never suggest it. It would actually be quite the flawed way of advertising.

...

Then again...considering the stupidity of some of my fellow Americans...

And the people who made those defective cribs that strangled infants didn't kidnap the kids and put them in there themselves, but that doesn't make them any less liable. We do tend to hold people liable for defects in their products. Spilling coffee is not some freak accident, but a fairly common event. It then stands to reason that coffee should not be given to people in cars when it is hot enough to give third degree burns. That's irresponsible.

There's a different between making a product that harms someone and someone harming themselves with a product. You can sue if your new oven blows up and hurts you (inexplicably, while using it correctly). You can't if you place dynamite inside and light it.

It's impossible to get third degree burns from hot coffee. In a third degree burn there is charring on the skin. That requires substantially higher temperaturs than can be present in watery substances.
Gosh. You'd better hurry up and tell the doctors and surgeons that cared for and operated on this poor women. 'Cause they testified in court, under oath, that that's exactly what she received.
They'll be very surprised to hear that they haven't a clue as to how to do their jobs.

My point is, people repeatedly, continuously sue for retarded reasons.

That's the whole point of tort reform:

You will not be able to sue unless you can claim the manufacturer provided a faulty product, violated an agreement, or broke the law. Currently this is not the case.

Today, there has been repeated cases of people suing manufacturers without even claiming any of the above.
And people are suing when there's no other option available to them
She sued McDs cause they refused to help pay for her hospital costs. It was the only option open to her.
The coffee they sold her was >87C (190F), more than 20C above what is tolerable. It was almost boiling temp. If you don't think that's wrong, boil a pot of water on the stove. When it starts bubbling (just b4 it boils), drink it.

In court, McDs admitted knowing that their coffee was too hot for human consumption - they knew that they were selling something that would cause serious injury if spilt and was too hot (wayyy to hot) to drink.
They had had hundreds of claims in the past over people getting serious scaldings from their coffee, yet had done nothing about it (when all that they needed to do was turn the frigging coffee maker down a couple of notches).
Thus, they basically had a company policy of selling something dangerous to customers, without warning them.
Also, at that time their coffee cup design wasn't too good, which meant it was easy to spill the near-boiling coffee.

The whole case was about liability. McDs was guilty as hell.
Hence the huge settlement - to send a msg to McDs, and other companies, that it is not okay to knowingly sell dangerous products without warning the customer first.

And of course the award was reduced substantially on appeal, and the jury found her partially responsible for the accident (20% IIRC), which reduced it even more. Take the lawyers whack out, and she prob would have had enough left over to pay for her months of surgery and rehab. Maybe.

Since then, the coffee cup has been redesigned, their coffee is no longer boiling, but at the temp everyone else serves it at (~140F), and they have warnings up telling ppl it's hot. None of which would have happened if not for this case.

So what's wrong with that?

Not compared to the Hot Coffee GTA thing.

Actually, that's a total misnomer. In the UK it was a storm in a teacup. Life went on. In the US... oh dear...
It was also a storm in a teacup.

And people are suing when there's no other option available to them
She sued McDs cause they refused to help pay for her hospital costs. It was the only option open to her.
The coffee they sold her was >87C (190F), more than 20C above what is tolerable. It was almost boiling temp. If you don't think that's wrong, boil a pot of water on the stove. When it starts bubbling (just b4 it boils), drink it.

You know why people boil water for their coffee? To drive out additives like chlorine. Makes it taste better. You know why they even more heat and high pressure super-heating the water. Extract more flavor from the coffee and to drive more crap out of the water faster. Yeah. Hotter coffee is better coffee. Especially when you're world wide like McDonald's and have a need to economically deliver the same product with highly variable local conditions.

Then there's why it makes sense to serve hot coffee. Dissolving sugar, and again, McDonald's by virtue of their fantastic number of customers is farther out standard deviation wise. Mixing cream, or hell a shot of milk from one of their little cartons they sell. I bet if a person asks they can load it up with sugar and get a cup of ICE for a sugary Iced coffee like I drink it. (I know, I could drink tepid flat coke). Then some people won't drink their coffee right away, but they still want it hot, maybe they're responsible drivers. Or they're buying coffee for many people, saving the enviroment, and fighting the terrorists by making one trip. Not to mention the added heat carries the aroma farther serving as advertising. To say nothing of the heat lost to vaporization and convection during stirring. The only thing McDonald's can really be sure about is that hot coffee isn't something anyone wants to be wearing. They generally trust in people's self interest in avoiding situations in which they KNOW they might be scalded. Because scalding hurts. Capacity for sugar, cream, milk, straight up blackness and how long that coffee will sit before being drunk hot isn't something they can know with any great "precision" (not to be confused with accuracy). But the number of retards who will decide to wear a hot liquid with high heat capacity (the real problem, not the temperature, by the way. So I say sue the fucking hydrogen.) is in fact vanishingly small given the multitude of millions of masters McDonald's serves every day.

Should the world be made for the people who can drink a beverage without seriously injuring themselves that constitute nearly everyone, or for the lost causes who but for the grace of God might well join the ranks of the score of Americans who manage to kill themselves with tap water every year.

Oh, and how does everyone manage to drink hot anything? Sipping it. Mixing the little bit of hot liquid, with high heat capacity, with a large volume of air, and spreading it over a wide area. Distributing the energy.

Her, her lawyers, anyone who ever supported her cause, and most importantly all of their children, in the interests of the species, should just be killed. If we don't write them off, they'll only keep building better idiots.

You know why people boil water for their coffee? To drive out additives like chlorine. Makes it taste better. You know why they even more heat and high pressure super-heating the water. Extract more flavor from the coffee and to drive more crap out of the water faster. Yeah. Hotter coffee is better coffee. Especially when you're world wide like McDonald's and have a need to economically deliver the same product with highly variable local conditions.

Then there's why it makes sense to serve hot coffee. Dissolving sugar, and again, McDonald's by virtue of their fantastic number of customers is farther out standard deviation wise. Mixing cream, or hell a shot of milk from one of their little cartons they sell. I bet if a person asks they can load it up with sugar and get a cup of ICE for a sugary Iced coffee like I drink it. (I know, I could drink tepid flat coke). Then some people won't drink their coffee right away, but they still want it hot, maybe they're responsible drivers. Or they're buying coffee for many people, saving the enviroment, and fighting the terrorists by making one trip. Not to mention the added heat carries the aroma farther serving as advertising. To say nothing of the heat lost to vaporization and convection during stirring. The only thing McDonald's can really be sure about is that hot coffee isn't something anyone wants to be wearing. They generally trust in people's self interest in avoiding situations in which they KNOW they might be scalded. Because scalding hurts. Capacity for sugar, cream, milk, straight up blackness and how long that coffee will sit before being drunk hot isn't something they can know with any great "precision" (not to be confused with accuracy). But the number of retards who will decide to wear a hot liquid with high heat capacity (the real problem, not the temperature, by the way. So I say sue the fucking hydrogen.) is in fact vanishingly small given the multitude of millions of masters McDonald's serves every day.

Should the world be made for the people who can drink a beverage without seriously injuring themselves that constitute nearly everyone, or for the lost causes who but for the grace of God might well join the ranks of the score of Americans who manage to kill themselves with tap water every year.

Oh, and how does everyone manage to drink hot anything? Sipping it. Mixing the little bit of hot liquid, with high heat capacity, with a large volume of air, and spreading it over a wide area. Distributing the energy.

Her, her lawyers, anyone who ever supported her cause, and most importantly all of their children, in the interests of the species, should just be killed. If we don't write them off, they'll only keep building better idiots.
You sound like the kind of person who wears furry mittons and adopts unwanted puppies! :)

I'm not saying that she shouldn't have exercised more common sense. I'm saying that such an accident could have--and probably would have--happened to anyone.
Not anyone. The severity of the injuries were in many ways directly related to her age. Not only do old people have thinner skin which burns much more easily, but doubtless her age and infirmity was responsible for it sitting in her lap for so long instead of leaping out of the car and trying to brush it off or hold the material away from her legs or even take it off. Not to mention that with the typical dexterity of a near octogenarian opening a cup of coffee in your lap in a car seat is a risky manoeuvre. At that age you have to recognise that you're not going to be able to do certain things as safely as you once could, like skiing or getting out of the bath, or opening piping hot coffee on your lap in a cramped car seat.