Current Events > Real News Network - The real story of the Hot Coffee McDonald's Case

(+) Yeah! (+)

Today, I will be going over what many of you hopefully know, but for that one schmuck who still takes all those sites who like to spread fake news around by simplifying it such as stating:

"Oh, Stella. And this is no reference to A Streetcar Named Desire.

Once upon a time, a woman named Stella Libeck bought a cup of coffee from a drive-through at McDonald's. She then placed it in between her knees to add cream. She ended up spilling it instead. The scalding-hot coffee gave her third degree burns and she sued McDonalds to cover the medical costs. She initially sued for $2.7 million in damage,s though the number was lowered to $640,000.

All of this despite the warning label and the ill-advised practice of putting a hot drink on your knees instead of finding a cup holder. It only seems naturally that she ended up spilling it on herself.

The funny part is that this case seems to have some merit to it. The temperature McDonalds serves its coffee at (180 Fahrenheit) legitimately will burn your skin severely in a matter of seconds, and so forever ignited the debate whether people can sue for not using common sense. Theres even a detailed Wikipedia page."

How unfortunate, perhaps if the writer spent more time actually looking deeper into the last part, they would have seen it was not a frivolous lawsuit at all. It should also be pointed out that she did not sue for 2.7 million dollars, she went for much lower than that, wanting money to cover the costs that her procedures cost (look up the damages, but it's not for faint of heart, very sad to see) after the 3rd degree burns.

I mean, we are humans, don't expect perfection, Mickey D's should have not been so negligent in the fact they were serving us cups of coffee that could burn us that badly. She was NOT the only one to be damaged, there were hundreds of complaints about this, yet McDonalds waved it off everytime.

She was awarded 2.7 million dollars because the jury found that the only way big businesses which put creating value for shareholders above all seem to get a clue about actually doing the right thing is by fining them for punitive damages. And as mentioned, the judge disagreed with this amount and lowered it significantly, but he still agreed McDonalds acted recklessly in what they did. It's not surprising that Ronald McDonald made sure his coffee was much cooler after this case...like it should have been in the first place.

A few more facts...the car she was in did not contain cupholders...although I guess you can't fault McDonald's, but she was not driving when the spill happened. As a matter of fact, the car was parked as her nephew was the one driving. She was an old lady, accidentally spilled the cup, as I am sure many of us have accidentally did, and was promptly punished with 3rd degree burns from a cup of coffee. There is no reason you should be hurt that badly.

At the end of the day, this wasn't some lady who deliberatlely spilled a hot cup of coffee to get a nice paycheck. This was an old lady who accidentally spilled a scalding hot cup that caused 3rd degree burns, and only wanted to get compensated for the skin grafts that had to be done (again, it is horrifying), and was unable to regain the strength she had prior to this incident. Because of this, McDonald's finally lowered the temperature of their coffee, showing that the judicial system can serve as excellent way of forcing companies to do the right thing when the other two branches will not.

Thank you for your time, and when someone you know brings up this case in a snarky manner as a way to rip on the judicial system and the civil court system and the trial lawyers, show them the pics of this lady's burns...teach them a little bit about the case itself, and see if they are still so snarky after that.
---

quien te hizo dao
---

fenderbender321 posted...

On the other hand, we can stick it to the customer and tell them to handle the coffee better.

The plaintiff, among other things, demonstrated that McDonald's knowingly served their coffee hotter than industry standards. Coffee shouldn't be served third degree burn inducingly hot.
---

she should have sued the car manufacturer for not having cup holders too
---

fenderbender321 posted...

On one hand, we can stick it to the businesses and tell them they are responsible for stuff like this.

On the other hand, we can stick it to the customer and tell them to handle the coffee better.

Either solution is justifiable in it's own way. Businesses are capable being better. But so are customers...even old women and children.

Sure, but many consumers like to put sugar in their coffee...which is why McDonald's gives you sugar in the first place if you ask. I don't know if you realize this, but coffee at the temperature they had it at, 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, will give you third degree burns in about 2-7 seconds. That is an insanely hot cup of coffee that they are giving the average consumer all to cut corners.

As for her, the courts did find her 20% at fault, they acknowledged that yes, she was the one to spill the coffee, so partially the blame falls on her, and that is why they reduced the compensatory damages by 20%.

This wasn't some lone example of hot coffee complaints, McDonalds received hundreds and did nothing about it. There is a difference between saying "Caution: Hot" and "Caution: You spill this on you and you might have to pay thousands in skin grafts, lol sorry"
---

Coffee should not be served at temperatures that can melt a vagina shut.
---

If the coffee was hot enough to give her 3rd degree burns, then it's too hot to even consume. So yeah, McDonald's acted negligently.

It is a shame, when you see so many sites out there with this as the poster case for how "ridiculous" our civil court system is.

This is an example of "fake news" that ruins the credibility of the media every time they decide to talk about this incorrectly. The U.S Chamber of Commerce is not your friend, and they are the money behind a lot of these exaggerated stories. I am trying to find examples of real cases where a small business was hit by a frivolous case, and was forced to shut down because even if they won, the cost of the case put them out of business, but I can't trust any of these sites because of the number of lies they present.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

IN reality, the lady could have simply just not spilled the coffee.

In reality, McDonald's could have not knowingly served their coffee at temperatures that they themselves admitted were unsafe for consumption as a matter of corporate policy.
---

The McDonald's case is the prime example of morons not taking a moment to actually look into the actualities of a case and just assume the worst. The victim was absolutely and severely burned as a result of coffee that was substantially hotter than the safe maximum and the franchise in question had received multiple complaints about the coffee being way, way too hot. So you have a history of negligence and indifference coupled with a horrific customer injury.

It's an open and shut civil case.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

20% is just an arbitrary number concocted by the courts. IN reality, the lady could have simply just not spilled the coffee. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, because I do agree with the premise of this article and thread in that the public's understanding of the issue has been and still is very misunderstood.

She could have, and maybe 20% is arbitrary, but it is clear it is not entirely her fault. Whether you believe it is 90/10, 80/20, 70/30, or perhaps 50/50, McDonalds had some part in being negligent, and therefore did deserve to pay some of the damages caused to the lady. It's just that, a lot of us have spilled drinks in our lives because we are only human, and it should be partially the responsibility of places like McDonald's to make sure they aren't providing us with excessively dangerous products that they could easily fix.

The solution was simple: McDonald's should have lowered the temp of their coffee in the first place, it is just unfortunate many had to get hurt or in the case of this lady, severely damaged, for them to finally keep up (or I guess more accurately, down) with the industry standard.

fenderbender321 posted...

Another thing to mention is that she wasn't the only McDonald's customer who ran into that problem. McDonald's had a history of fielding complaints about having coffee that was dangerously hot.

And that's exactly why McDonald's had some guilt in this case.
---