A forum for all your cooking delights! Post up cooking horror stories, your favorite recipe's, questions, or anything else that relates to what happens in the kitchen!Hot Coffee vs McDonald's 2
01-12-2014, 05:31 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Providence, Rhode Island
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 99 Tibby
Hot Coffee vs McDonald's 2
20 years after the first hot coffee lawsuit, there's a second one.
Link
She burned herself two years ago and she's just NOW suing? Really?
Link
She burned herself two years ago and she's just NOW suing? Really?
01-12-2014, 09:50 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: MC + RD2 + AW11 + 944 = 4x Win
^What he said^
These are the dumbest law suits ever. Coffee is hot, you take the risk trying to drink it in the car. Deal with it! Don't like that? order iced coffee. It's going to be impossible to prove that the drive-thru attendant didn't affix the lid vs this idiot loosing it. In fact, most of the time it's handed to you in such a way you have to grab it from the lid. If she did that, it's personal responsibility, check the lid before driving away. Seriously stupid.
These are the dumbest law suits ever. Coffee is hot, you take the risk trying to drink it in the car. Deal with it! Don't like that? order iced coffee. It's going to be impossible to prove that the drive-thru attendant didn't affix the lid vs this idiot loosing it. In fact, most of the time it's handed to you in such a way you have to grab it from the lid. If she did that, it's personal responsibility, check the lid before driving away. Seriously stupid.
01-12-2014, 11:10 PM
#4
Super Moderator
Sometimes coffee is served at much higher temperatures than is customary. Sometimes these places are warned many, many times that they're coffee is too hot for human consumption. Sometimes these places decide to keep the coffee too hot despite warnings because it will last longer and result is less waste and therefore higher profits. Sometimes these places then get sued for enough money to make it a better financial decision to turn down the temp rather than risk being sued again.
Knowledge is power.
01-13-2014, 03:00 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: MC + RD2 + AW11 + 944 = 4x Win
The base-line of the law suit isn't that the coffee was too hot, it was that the coffee spilled due to a cap that was supposedly not properly affixed. That, again, will be a tough scenario to prove either direction. Any hot coffee served is at temperature that could potentially burn sensitive parts of the body, but that is the risk to consuming freshly brewed liquid whether it is in the home or out/about. Seriously, they already have to serve this stuff in a sippy-cup because people can't handle themselves in a reasonable manor, there do they go from here?
However, assumed that the lid wasn't properly attached coffee did spill. What is the purpose in the law suit? Based on what I read, the coffee spilled and this person immediately jumped at a chance to make millions of dollars. There was no mention of a supervisor or store manager being involved. No mention of contacting the corporate headquarters to discuss medical needs for and extent of injuries that are "unclear." So we're CLEARLY not talking about 3rd degree burns, like the previous case. If there was any medical attention needed lets see the documentation. Why was this not handled outside of court? There are so many unanswered variables that I find it hard to believe the basis of the legal action is anything but greed.
If extensive bodily harm was done, it would be a fact known well to the case.
If heat were the core issue, that would be documented as well.
There was no need to make this a public spectacle of this issue. She made appearances on news media outlets as early as October of last year making these claims, but still no mention of attempting to contact anyone at McDonalds regarding the issue. IN FACT there is a lot of blame game going around regarding waiting for someone to contact her. And specific mention in one of these interviews that there was no hospital stay, merely a visit and home on the same day. The case from the 90's required skin grafts and pretty serious medical care, hence the 2 million dollar asking price. This case has an almost similar dollar figure attached, but far less documentation and no where near the severity. In fact, after watching aforementioned interview, she specifically states that she had her hands on the coffee as well, at the time of the incident; making it much harder to local blame on the server.
Further links:
LA Times
Business Insider
WSB
I maintain the whole thing is far to convenient and manufactured.
The original incident - Feb 1992, the most recent - Jan 2012. Almost exactly 2 decades later
Both "sweet old ladies"
Both asking 2+ million dollars from the same mega-giant fast food resteraunt
The 1st, well documented with very sever injuries. This one questionable injuries, no hospital stay and piss-poor documentation.
I'll give the first one it's credence, but this nonsense
However, assumed that the lid wasn't properly attached coffee did spill. What is the purpose in the law suit? Based on what I read, the coffee spilled and this person immediately jumped at a chance to make millions of dollars. There was no mention of a supervisor or store manager being involved. No mention of contacting the corporate headquarters to discuss medical needs for and extent of injuries that are "unclear." So we're CLEARLY not talking about 3rd degree burns, like the previous case. If there was any medical attention needed lets see the documentation. Why was this not handled outside of court? There are so many unanswered variables that I find it hard to believe the basis of the legal action is anything but greed.
If extensive bodily harm was done, it would be a fact known well to the case.
If heat were the core issue, that would be documented as well.
There was no need to make this a public spectacle of this issue. She made appearances on news media outlets as early as October of last year making these claims, but still no mention of attempting to contact anyone at McDonalds regarding the issue. IN FACT there is a lot of blame game going around regarding waiting for someone to contact her. And specific mention in one of these interviews that there was no hospital stay, merely a visit and home on the same day. The case from the 90's required skin grafts and pretty serious medical care, hence the 2 million dollar asking price. This case has an almost similar dollar figure attached, but far less documentation and no where near the severity. In fact, after watching aforementioned interview, she specifically states that she had her hands on the coffee as well, at the time of the incident; making it much harder to local blame on the server.
Further links:
LA Times
Business Insider
WSB
I maintain the whole thing is far to convenient and manufactured.
The original incident - Feb 1992, the most recent - Jan 2012. Almost exactly 2 decades later
Both "sweet old ladies"
Both asking 2+ million dollars from the same mega-giant fast food resteraunt
The 1st, well documented with very sever injuries. This one questionable injuries, no hospital stay and piss-poor documentation.
I'll give the first one it's credence, but this nonsense
01-13-2014, 09:02 PM
#7
Super Moderator
The base-line of the law suit isn't that the coffee was too hot, it was that the coffee spilled due to a cap that was supposedly not properly affixed. That, again, will be a tough scenario to prove either direction. Any hot coffee served is at temperature that could potentially burn sensitive parts of the body, but that is the risk to consuming freshly brewed liquid whether it is in the home or out/about. Seriously, they already have to serve this stuff in a sippy-cup because people can't handle themselves in a reasonable manor, there do they go from here?
My comment was aimed at the "there's a second one" comment. This one is NOT like the first one. The first one was 100% justified.
