WorkingHardforSmallRewards
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,236
Well, in another thread someone mentioned this lawsuit and frankly nobody I know has ever heard the actual facts. In general the media is interested in short to the point attention getting stories, so what better than saying "someone sued Mcdonald's for spilling coffee in their lap in the car and won millions." Well, who hasn't spilled coffee in there lap while driving at some point? I have, my poor little yaris.
but, that isn't exactly how it happened, there are a number of links that will take you to good information about the truth if you type in google "the truth about the mcdonalds coffee lawsuit" but here are two links with some text quoted from the first:
Very informative link
Quick summary link
now to the important quotes:
"The trial heard that, according to McDonalds’ in-house instructions, coffee sold at their restaurants should be at a temperature of 83 - 88 C [181-190 degrees F] while in most other restaurants it is approximately 60 C [140 Degrees F]"
so what does that mean?
"at 82 degrees causes third-degree burns in less than three seconds, whereas at 60-degrees it takes 20 seconds to cause a similar burn. In other words, if spilled, 60-degree coffee cools in such a way that it does not cause burns."
Did it just happen this once? some unusual fluke?
"A McDonalds representative testified that the company had known of burns caused by its coffee for 10 years. Their documents revealed more than 700 claims by people burned by coffee, and that the company had paid over $500,000 in related damages. Furthermore, a U.S. burn research centre had demanded that McDonalds reduce the temperature of its coffee."
So why did they make there coffee so hot, well according to the quality assurance manager:
"McDonalds had no intention of reducing the temperature of its coffee since customers wanted their coffee hot. He also said the coffee was too hot to drink immediately after it had been poured into a cup, but that customers bought coffee on their way to work or home and did not drink it until at their destination, allowing it to cool to drinking temperature."
But what is the real reason that they did it?
"The trial revealed that McDonalds intentionally kept its coffee hot to save money. Hot water improved its aroma, enabling them to use cheaper coffee types. Furthermore, the fact that customers did not complain about cold coffee reduced the number of free coffees given in compensation."
So in order to save a few bucks lets see what actually happened in the car on that infamous suit:
"Mrs Stella Liebeck, 79, who was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car, bought a cup of coffee from a drive-through window of a McDonalds restaurant. The grandson drove the car forward and stopped momentarily so that she could add cream to her coffee. When she tried to open the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled onto her lap, causing third-degree burns to her thighs and groin areas. Liebeck was hospitalised for 8 days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. The burns left permanent scarring and she remained ill until two years after the incident."
Now is that worth a couple million dollars? I say its worth whatever the business had to give, but in fact, the compensation is not all that the media reported it to be:
"After the jury’s decision, the judge reduced the punitive damages awarded to Liebeck from $2.7 million to $480,000 because they were considered unreasonable."
And don't forget, Mcdonald's had an opportunity to get out of this:
"After she was released from hospital, Liebeck contacted McDonalds and asked them to compensate her expenses, totalling $20,000. McDonalds refused and offered her $800."
It wasn't until after they refused her perfectly reasonable request that she went to court.
In truth, the American legal system isn't quite as bad as people seem to think.
but, that isn't exactly how it happened, there are a number of links that will take you to good information about the truth if you type in google "the truth about the mcdonalds coffee lawsuit" but here are two links with some text quoted from the first:
Very informative link
Quick summary link
now to the important quotes:
"The trial heard that, according to McDonalds’ in-house instructions, coffee sold at their restaurants should be at a temperature of 83 - 88 C [181-190 degrees F] while in most other restaurants it is approximately 60 C [140 Degrees F]"
so what does that mean?
"at 82 degrees causes third-degree burns in less than three seconds, whereas at 60-degrees it takes 20 seconds to cause a similar burn. In other words, if spilled, 60-degree coffee cools in such a way that it does not cause burns."
Did it just happen this once? some unusual fluke?
"A McDonalds representative testified that the company had known of burns caused by its coffee for 10 years. Their documents revealed more than 700 claims by people burned by coffee, and that the company had paid over $500,000 in related damages. Furthermore, a U.S. burn research centre had demanded that McDonalds reduce the temperature of its coffee."
So why did they make there coffee so hot, well according to the quality assurance manager:
"McDonalds had no intention of reducing the temperature of its coffee since customers wanted their coffee hot. He also said the coffee was too hot to drink immediately after it had been poured into a cup, but that customers bought coffee on their way to work or home and did not drink it until at their destination, allowing it to cool to drinking temperature."
But what is the real reason that they did it?
"The trial revealed that McDonalds intentionally kept its coffee hot to save money. Hot water improved its aroma, enabling them to use cheaper coffee types. Furthermore, the fact that customers did not complain about cold coffee reduced the number of free coffees given in compensation."
So in order to save a few bucks lets see what actually happened in the car on that infamous suit:
"Mrs Stella Liebeck, 79, who was in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car, bought a cup of coffee from a drive-through window of a McDonalds restaurant. The grandson drove the car forward and stopped momentarily so that she could add cream to her coffee. When she tried to open the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled onto her lap, causing third-degree burns to her thighs and groin areas. Liebeck was hospitalised for 8 days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. The burns left permanent scarring and she remained ill until two years after the incident."
Now is that worth a couple million dollars? I say its worth whatever the business had to give, but in fact, the compensation is not all that the media reported it to be:
"After the jury’s decision, the judge reduced the punitive damages awarded to Liebeck from $2.7 million to $480,000 because they were considered unreasonable."
And don't forget, Mcdonald's had an opportunity to get out of this:
"After she was released from hospital, Liebeck contacted McDonalds and asked them to compensate her expenses, totalling $20,000. McDonalds refused and offered her $800."
It wasn't until after they refused her perfectly reasonable request that she went to court.
In truth, the American legal system isn't quite as bad as people seem to think.
Which is to be expected. I just saw someone mentioning it and figured I would share.
300x240.png)