Here's to a less litigious society...

Yah, the whole point of the lawsuit is that coffee should be hot, but making it explosively and dangerously hot is negligent and Mcdonalds needed to stop doing it - it took a lawsuit and a lady receiving 3rd degree burns to her groin and legs to get them to stop.
Mcdonalds had been warned previously about coffee being too hot and did nothing.

Super heated is a bit over the top, to say the least (and dangerous)!

Back to the OT....I HATED those first aid questions on the theory test.  Mostly because the one question I got wrong was one of those.  I disagree with them being on the test because as a lay-person with NO medical training, I shouldn't be doing CPR on any motorists based on what I read in the theory book.  That would be very negligent of me and for the DSA to believe that we should be able to do that is a bit silly. 

As for living in a less litigious society in the UK...I don't think the UK are far behind the US.  Daytime telly is full of ads for lawyers and getting compensation for injuries etc.  I fully agree that people need to take more personal responsibility for their actions/situations in life and that suing someone is not just the easy answer. 

Anyone wanting to see just how bad some outrageous lawsuits are in the US should look up True Stella Awards by Randy Cassingham. The name, incidentally, is derived from Stella Liebeck, the woman in the McDonalds case.

<RANT>
Sorry but the McDonalds case makes my blood boil. It was not a frivolous case but it was an outrageous case that took advantage of the legal system. The case rested on technicalities of how hot the coffee was being served. I am sorry the woman got burned. But the fact of the matter was the woman was holding a Styrofoam cup of hot coffee between her knees and was pulling the lid off when she tipped the entire contents on to her lap. The coffee was served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit and at those temperatures, it will cause 3rd burns in a few seconds.

The reason why the coffee was served hot was over looked. Most consumers took the coffee to drink at work though a few would drink it immediately. There were warning labels. Why should McDonalds have to offer the majority of customers what the minority wanted?

During the 10-year run up to the accident, there were 700 documented cases of burns from McDonald's coffee, or 70 burns per year. Now that does sound like a lot of cases. And it is. But it’s all relative. McDonalds pointed out that represents 1 injury per 24 MILLION cups of coffee sold. 23,999,999 people managed to drink the coffee without injury.

Stella Awards points out coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees. It says the National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.

Other coffee vendors such as Starbucks, BK etc have had similar lawsuits and it has been found they serve coffee as hot or hotter than the McDonalds coffee. So it would appear it is luck of the draw with the 12 jurors.

There have been several instances in the UK of similar cases brought against McDonalds and (to my knowledge) all have been thrown out. Non-superheated water, ie boiling water in a kettle will give 3rd degree burns.

Bottom line is coffee will burn. The onus is on the individual to be careful.
Would it be fair of me to sue the local coffee shop, that sold me a cup of coffee and I stupidly spilt it in my lap and suffered 3rd burns?
</RANT END>

The US actually has better laws to protect responders in that situation, the concept of a Good Samaritan law isn't really in practice here.

I've heard and seen that in recent times, this is less the case. Good Samaritan laws aren't enough anymore: link .

I think we are probably better off in the UK with respect to any possible consequences of acting as a good Samaritan. For starters any payout would be extremely limited as compared to US awards.

In that case the CA Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't a medical issue.  It sounds as if there is a lot of debate as to what was actually going on, so it is for the court to decide if the person was negligent. 

While a lower payout is good, I'd rather not have the hassle of going to court at all. 

I think the good Samaritan laws depend on the state.  I know in the northeast, you'd could be doing CPR on somone's toe in many states and not get sued.  You could, however, get in huge trouble in states like Vermont if you drove past an accident and had medical or first aid training.  

ETA: I think the McDonald's case was one where the woman pushed so hard for compensation because she initially just asked for help with the medical bills and McDonald's refused, despite the fact she had to have skin grafts.  She wasn't driving with the cup between her legs, but pulled over in the drive thru waiting area as a passenger.  I might be wrong with the details as it's been a while, but I remember at the time people like Rush Limbaugh were making claims about the case that were totally not true.

Edit mark 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants The references, as usual, are at the bottom of the article.  And, AFAIK, 190 F isn't the temp that you serve coffee, but the recommended temperature that the water is when it hits the grounds in some methods.  While keeping it hot might help preserve the flavour, you don't drink it at that temperature.  Think about it for a moment.  If it's going to cause third degree burns on some woman's butt and thighs, what's it going to do to your insides?  As much as people have personal responsibility, and undoing a lid with a cup between your legs isn't very bright, serving people in cars near boiling cups of coffee isn't brilliant on McDonald's part either.  At that point they have complete control over the temperature of the coffee. 

I am not saying that she deserved millions, but ffs, help with the medical bills a little more than offering $800 when someone needs skin grafts and gets down to 85 pounds.  It is a distortion to claim that every place serves their coffee at around 200 F, because they don't, particularly places that expect people to be driving and drinking.

The McDonald’s case:

I feel sorry Mrs Stella got burned severly but I still cannot, nor ever will, understand how McDonald’s can be held responsible.

The facts around the case are all out now and yes there was a lot of mistruths reported about the case. Only the McDonald's involved in the lawsuit have reduced the serving temperture. The case had no relevancy regarding superheated water. This was not caused by superheating, it was a spill.

It is not a distortion that Burger King and a few other fast food places DO serve their coffee as hot as McDonald’s, hence, the many lawsuits brought against those chains as well (here and in the US). These are well documented even in the Wiki article.

Coffee is made with 212F water. By the time I get the coffee to my desk it is about 190F. I know, I measured it. It is designed to be sipped. That is why it does not scald one’s throat.

According to the National Coffee Association coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit.

But even if the coffee was served cooler, say at 150F, this will still cause burns if in contact with the skin for 5- 6 seconds. Coffee served at 150F would not be satisfactory coffee.

The woman was a passenger in a stopped car. BUT she put a cup of hot coffee between her legs to remove the top. Who in their right mind would do something so dangerous? If the coffee had been cooler, it would still burn, perhaps not as severe but enough to warrant a trip to the hospital. To use the argument that she didn’t know the coffee would burn as bad is not an argument. Why not sue the manufacturer of her sweat pants since they did not warn her they would act as a sponge and could cause sever injury if boiling water was poured on them? Did she have a seatbelt on and that restricted her quick exit? Could she not sue the car manufacturer for not stating a seatbelt may delay her exit in an emergency? Where does it stop?

I am sorry but I do not think McDonald’s should be responsible for someone’s incompetence any more than a brewery should be held liable for someone with alcohol related illnesses.

Both parties settled out of court. I suspect that both parties thought they may have lost on another appeal.

But all cases arising in the UK against McDonalds have been rejected. Why? Because adults are responsible for their actions. So at least litigation here seems to keep to the real world and not what someone can get because the company is an easy target.

Another example of stupid lawsuits:
A lawsuit against Winnebago because they didn’t warn the owner that they could not put the vehicle on cruise control and leave the driver’s seat. This happened and the Winnebago crashed. Who would have guessed? But the guy was award a huge payout and Winnebago subsequently amended the owner’s manual to cater for complete idiots.

Edited to correct a false report as confirmed by Snopes and the real True Stella Awards. Please accept my apologies but I found this on a Stella awards page which in fact is a rogue site and not Randy Cassingham's True Stella.
 

Another example of stupid lawsuits:
A lawsuit against Winnebago because they didn’t warn the owner that they could not put the vehicle on cruise control and leave the driver’s seat. This happened and the Winnebago crashed. Who would have guessed? But the guy was award a huge payout and Winnebago subsequently amended the owner’s manual to cater for complete idiots.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

Thanks for setting this straight. I had found a rogue TrueStella page. I've edit the previous post to reflect this falsehood.

I've looked up the references to the recommended brewing temperature of coffee (and serving) that you mention and it all leads back to this case.  I am sorry, but I cannot believe that coffee that will cause third degree burns on skin is safe to drink.  Coffee that hot is meant to cool to the individuals preferred drinking temperature.  Nice in an office, home, or at a restaurant table, not so wise in drive throughs. Most people avoid brewing coffee with boiling water (212 F) because it tends to cause bitter coffee.

I don't think there are heroes in this case.  McDonalds isn't a victim here.  If they had put customer well being above the profit margin, they would have offered to help with the medical bills more than they did.  If they cared about their customers, they would have their to go coffees come from an insulated carafe (as many restaurants do--please note I never said ALL other restaurants do) rather than off a hot plate.  While the plaintiff was partially to blame, I don't think initially asking for help with the medical bills was unreasonable, and I can understand after NEARLY DYING and being offered only $800 to help with the bills, attempting to roast them over the flames.  I am sure you're not that long out of the States to forget what it's like to pay medical expenses.

This case has been a way to promote hysteria against lawsuits in the States, and while I think that there is need for reform in some areas (especially lawsuits against individuals rather than corporations), I would much rather that system then the over regulated system that exists here.

In the end a corporation, whether it's McDonalds or Whole Foods or Ford, is only going to do something if it works towards making a profit.  That is what it is legally bound to do.  This is why even in the US, corporations will figure out the costs of lawsuits (even those brought by families of customers after their customers' deaths) in deciding whether certain safety practices are used.  If the cost of settling a few lawsuits is low enough, they will not bother with using a safer policy.

If you want tort reform, you need to first reform how corporations are run and their legal liability to consumer safety.  Otherwise, they aren't going to give two craps about their customers as long as it doesn't hurt their profits. If the publicity wasn't too bad and they didn't manage to kill or drive off too many customers, they wouldn't need to implement safety standards.  In fact, they'd be legally bound not to unless it would enhance profits.

 

Edited to sound a bit less confrontational about it all, because it's really not worth it.

I am aware of medical costs in the states but that is no excuse to try and get a corporation to pay. McDonald's should have paid her medical costs because she was a customer? If she had her own insurance, would that have matter? There were warning labels on the cups. How much warning does one need regarding hot coffee?

How about Tesco paying for my cancer treatment as they sold me cigarettes? Or Argos paying for my medical treatment because I bought a screwdriver and used it improperly? Like I said earlier, where does it stop. As long as there are huge pay outs, there will always be a clever lawyer willing to go for a slice of the pie.

 But as I stated, they both settled out of court. Why? Because I believe that both parties thought they may lose.

The customers obviously want hot coffee. My coffee, at home, is of a similar temperature. Coffee is a hot drink and hot enough to burn, yes 3rd degree burns given the right conditions. That is the nature of hot drinks and food. If I buy a coffee to go and it is already cooled, then by the time I get to where I am going it will be cold. What about soup? If I go to a restaurant I expect it to be piping hot. What if the person at the table next to me spilled their hot soup on me? Should I sue the restaurant because they made the soup too hot?

From my understanding the jury awarded her 20% responsibility. Another jury may have awarded her 100% responsibility.

Sorry but I feel this was one court case that should have never made it to court.

Why have there been no other cases being awarded against McDonald's and others in the US?

But it's not tort reform I would like to see. I would like to see reasonable awards not rock star wages being handed out.

Further reiteration of the case (from StellaAwards)

The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?

I never said she wasn't partially to blame.  In fact, I said the opposite in every post I've made in this thread.  I am not sure why you think that because I think McDonalds should have helped pay for this woman's medical bills, I agree with all the language used in arguing the case in her lawsuit.  

I also don't think that you can compare cigarettes to coffee.  If you were talking about a lawsuit about McDonald's coffee causing someone's hypertension, then it would be more like comparing like to like.  Argos could be part liable if they sold a screwdriver (they made, because McDonald's made the coffee) that was needlessly flimsy even if you used it in a dumb way.  When you start to go on about hot food in restaurants, you fail to recognise the difference between food being served to people in cars and food being served at a table. 

But in the end, I am not going to change your mind and vice versa.  It's not always moot to argue about things, but I think that sometimes things outrage us because we need them to outrage us.  Sort of like outrage porn.  That's why stuff like this, tabloids, extreme political blogs (from any viewpoint), talk radio exist. I hope, at least, you understand a bit more why people don't get as outraged about it and you might get an eyeroll or two when people bring up the McDonald's scalding case.   As I said many times, I don't think that there are heroes in this story, but if there's a victim, it's not McDonald's.

I never said she wasn't partially to blame.  In fact, I said the opposite in every post I've made in this thread.  I am not sure why you think that because I think McDonalds should have helped pay for this woman's medical bills, I agree with all the language used in arguing the case in her lawsuit.  

OK thanks for clarifying. Not that you had to. It wasn't aimed directly at you as I have come across a few other sites that have similar views. Yours just spurred me on to write something.

I also don't think that you can compare cigarettes to coffee.  If you were talking about a lawsuit about McDonald's coffee causing someone's hypertension, then it would be more like comparing like to like.  Argos could be part liable if they sold a screwdriver (they made, because McDonald's made the coffee) that was needlessly flimsy even if you used it in a dumb way.  When you start to go on about hot food in restaurants, you fail to recognise the difference between food being served to people in cars and food being served at a table. 

Fair dues regards the smokes.

But in the end, I am not going to change your mind and vice versa.  It's not always moot to argue about things, but I think that sometimes things outrage us because we need them to outrage us.  Sort of like outrage porn.  That's why stuff like this, tabloids, extreme political blogs (from any viewpoint), talk radio exist. I hope, at least, you understand a bit more why people don't get as outraged about it and you might get an eyeroll or two when people bring up the McDonald's scalding case.  As I said many times, I don't think that there are heroes in this story, but if there's a victim, it's not McDonald's.

Not sure if I need these things to outrage me but sometimes they just do.
You're correct, there were no heroes but I would consider both parties were victims.
I can see your points but we'll just have to agree to disagree on some areas. But at least it is civilised in here. I won't roll my eyes, I promise. 

Why does anybody need coffee that hot anyway?  It's not like you can drink it.