Starbucks customer sues for $114 million

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: getbush
It bugs me every time the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is referenced in association with frivolous lawsuits.

Why? Did you fall for the lawyer produced "fact sheet" on the case that the ambulance chasers spammed all over the internet in a vain effort to make them look better?

I hope not, because it's crap.

McDonald's lost the case for one reason: They were unprepared and did not take the case seriously.

Ha. Do you really believe any international multi-billion dollar corporation goes into any multimillion dollar lawsuit unprepared? What a joke.
She asked for medical bills paid, they said fvck off, they got what they deserved. No reason to serve any liquid at 190 degrees. Maybe they will take the next incident that puts a customer in the hospital more seriously.

Actually, no.

McDonald's offered to pay her a settlement based on her first request of 20 grand... which she revised to 300 grand. She told them to fsck off.

They owed her nothing. The coffee was NOT unreasonably hot, and there WAS a warning on the lid.

The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees;

http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.

If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

...another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1085626349093

In the couple dozen cases that have gone to trial since 1994, coffee sellers have pointed out that the beverage must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees Fahrenheit, or else the grounds won't release the flavor. Moreover, most people prefer coffee at 161.8 degrees Fahrenheit, a University of California at Davis study shows, which is why, says Lingle, the industry's standard serving temperature is 160 to 185 degrees. Although Morgan's experts had testified in the Liebeck case that coffee of 170 degrees would cause second-degree skin burns in two seconds, one's tongue and mouth lining are thicker than one's skin. What scars your hand melts in your mouth.

This same article says this:

McDonald's current general counsel, Gloria Santona, says the loss was a fluke because an unfamiliar insurer, which was representing the franchise, set trial strategy: "If we had had better communications, we would have had a heads-up and would have been much more actively involved in the defense." Jurors told Newsweek at the time that an expert for the company inadvertently helped sway them. After learning that 700 people had complained to the company about the heat of its coffee, safety consultant Robert Knaff calculated that that equaled one problem for every 24 million cups sold. This was, he said, "basically trivially different from zero." One juror explained the decision to award millions in punitives: "It was our way of saying, 'Hey, open your eyes. People are getting burned.'"

The defense was unprepared and incompetent. Even at their own admission.

So "HA" back at you. Next time, try reading past the propaganda put out by the ambulance chasers.

The joke is on you.

 

[mrchan]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
If I were the judge, I would award him a free small cup of cofee. All attorney fees would be paid by their own parties.

I'm sure his attorney is working on a contingency fee basis, so he'd probably get a third of that cup of coffee.

 

[imported_Zeke]

bait and switch

 

[getbush]

Amused, there are facts that prove they got what they deserve. I double dare you to guzzle a 190 degree cup of coffee, seriously. The judge himself denounced McDonald's carelessness. If they would have just paid the woman's hospital bills, it would have been over. Nowhere in my wildest dreams do I think she deserved 2.7 million, or even 1 million, but the fact is something had to be done about the incident, and it was eventually settled for probably a couple hundred thousand.

I guess you believe 3rd degree burns, a week long hospital stay, and skin graft surgeries are a perfectly acceptable risk from fast food coffee. I disagree in this instance. You know the facts as presented in the sheets. I'd really like to see your counter points. It's not just ambulnace chasers. These are talking points in law schools across teh country.

I don't think McDonald's team was underprepared, there was a subtle difference. They chose not to prepare. They chose arrogance. They chose to ignore the facts. They chose wrong. It's the same lack of regard by the legal team that got them to that point in teh first place.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
Amused, there are facts that prove they got what they deserve. I double dare you to guzzle a 190 degree cup of coffee, seriously. The judge himself denounced McDonald's carelessness. If they would have just paid the woman's hospital bills, it would have been over. Nowhere in my wildest dreams do I think she deserved 2.7 million, or even 1 million, but the fact is something had to be done about the incident, and it was eventually settled for probably a couple hundred thousand.

I guess you believe 3rd degree burns, a week long hospital stay, and skin graft surgeries are a perfectly acceptable risk from fast food coffee. I disagree in this instance. You know the facts as presented in the sheets. I'd really like to see your counter points. It's not just ambulnace chasers. These are talking points in law schools across teh country.

I don't think McDonald's team was underprepared, there was a subtle difference. They chose not to prepare. They chose arrogance. They chose to ignore the facts. They chose wrong. It's the same lack of regard by the legal team that got them to that point in teh first place.

You just completely ignored everything I proved in my post. Why?

In fact, they were so unprepared that her case is the ONLY self inflicted coffee burn case to win. Dozens more have been tried and all failed. Starbucks continues to sell it's coffee at 180-190 degrees. They've been sued many times in light of this frivolous case and have won each time.

BTW, the coffee in the Liebeck case was at 170 degrees.

Go ahead and ignore the recommended brewing and serving temps from coffee experts around the world. I guess we need to have crappy coffee to appease bleeding hearts like you?

No.

And it wasn't McDonald's that defended the case. It was their insurance company. Another point you missed because you failed to even read my post.

You're wrong. She was wrong. And the ambulance chasers got lucky... once. They NEVER have gotten lucky again. Why? Because it's a KNOWN risk.

I've just debunked the entire case in my first response to you. The entire "talking points" propaganda sheet you speak of. And the fact that her case is the only one that was won out of dozens sinse that have lost should tell you something.

 

[getbush]

Show me where the coffee in the case was 170. You simply can't.

You debunked the whole case in one ****** post? You should contact McDonald's legal department about a job ASAP.

So coffee people say serve it at 180-190 for best aroma and flavor? Ask any medical professional if they reccomend ingesting a 190 degree liquid. Which is more important? Health? Or the aroma and flavor of a beverage that smells and tatste bad anyway? If the national kool-aid association tells you to drink your kool-aid at 211 degrees are you going to mindlessly comply?

Show me documented proof where McDonald's at any point agreed to pay $20k. The only point in time that may have occurred is after the jury ver

dict came in for $2.7 mil. It never happened though. They were ignorant to the end, denying a 225,000 offer just before the verdict.

I think serving it at 160 is fine. That seems to be where people want it. 190 is a lot more than 160. 190 will cause those burns in 7 seconds. 160 coffee will take 10 times as long. Other restaurants were sampled and the highest was 20 degrees less than McDs at 170, with most around 160.

fact: McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

That is a fact. That is documented testimony. You haven't given a single verifiable fact other than, the coffee people say 190 is good.

Please direct me to subsequent court cases where someone required hospitalization and surgery following injury from coffee burns. Thank you.

Oh and answer this very simple question. Would you, right now, willingly drink, and I mean really drink, a 190 degree cup of coffee?

 

[doze]

Originally posted by: getbush

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: getbush
It bugs me every time the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is referenced in association with frivolous lawsuits.

Why? Did you fall for the lawyer produced "fact sheet" on the case that the ambulance chasers spammed all over the internet in a vain effort to make them look better?

I hope not, because it's crap.

McDonald's lost the case for one reason: They were unprepared and did not take the case seriously.

Ha. Do you really believe any international multi-billion dollar corporation goes into any multimillion dollar lawsuit unprepared? What a joke.
She asked for medical bills paid, they said fvck off, they got what they deserved. No reason to serve any liquid at 190 degrees. Maybe they will take the next incident that puts a customer in the hospital more seriously.

Coffee is supposed to be served hot, just like ice cream is served cold.

 

[getbush]

Hot is a subjective term. 160 is hot and ok. 190 is hot and dangerous.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
Show me where the coffee in the case was 170. You simply can't.

You debunked the whole case in one ****** post? You should contact McDonald's legal department about a job ASAP.

So coffee people say serve it at 180-190 for best aroma and flavor? Ask any medical professional if they reccomend ingesting a 190 degree liquid. Which is more important? Health? Or the aroma and flavor of a beverage that smells and tatste bad anyway? If the national kool-aid association tells you to drink your kool-aid at 211 degrees are you going to mindlessly comply?

Show me documented proof where McDonald's at any point agreed to pay $20k. The only point in time that may have occurred is after the jury ver

dict came in for $2.7 mil. It never happened though. They were ignorant to the end, denying a 225,000 offer just before the verdict.

I think serving it at 160 is fine. That seems to be where people want it. 190 is a lot more than 160. 190 will cause those burns in 7 seconds. 160 coffee will take 10 times as long. Other restaurants were sampled and the highest was 20 degrees less than McDs at 170, with most around 160.

fact: McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

That is a fact. That is documented testimony. You haven't given a single verifiable fact other than, the coffee people say 190 is good.

Please direct me to subsequent court cases where someone required hospitalization and surgery following injury from coffee burns. Thank you.

Oh and answer this very simple question. Would you, right now, willingly drink, and I mean really drink, a 190 degree cup of coffee?

Why do you keep trying?

The fact that no other case of similar nature has won since should tell you something.

Obviously it doesn't.

Pssst: The article I linked to (had you bothered to read it... it's becoming obvious you're not paying attention) was about another case her lawyer brought in 2004. It, and many like it involving 3rd degree burns have been thrown out since. Including that one. He got lucky once, tried two more times and failed.

Face it, the case was won because McDonald's insurers were unprepared. It NEVER happened again.

Yes, I want my coffee freshly brewed at the recommended brewing temp. I will allow it to cool down before I drink it. And it's sad that people like you will take away all the joys in life because you support fools who hurt themselves through their own neglegence.

Hot coffee is dangerous. It's a risk you assume when you buy the cup. Hell, that the cups and lids even have warnings on them is absurd enough.

Stupidity SHOULD be painful. And in Stella Liebeck's case it was. That she got paid for it was a travesty. The stupid woman fiddled with her cup between her legs, spilled hot coffee in her lap, allowed her sweatpants to soak it up, and remained seated for approximately 90 seconds. She deserves all the pain she got.

 

[bullstory]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
If I were the judge, I would award him a free small cup of cofee. All attorney fees would be paid by their own parties.

thats a bit mean, two grandes at least.

 

[Vic]

The ideal temperature for drip brewing coffee is 190 F. This is indisputable among coffee aficionados. The grind should be relatively fine, the drip fast, and ratio of coffee to water high.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Vic
The ideal temperature for drip brewing coffee is 190 F. This is indisputable among coffee aficionados. The grind should be relatively fine, the drip fast, and ratio of coffee to water high.

So you caught the difference between brewing and serving too, eh?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Vic
The ideal temperature for drip brewing coffee is 190 F. This is indisputable among coffee aficionados. The grind should be relatively fine, the drip fast, and ratio of coffee to water high.

So you caught the difference between brewing and serving too, eh?

The ideal brewing temp is 190-205. The ideal serving time is right after brewing at brewing temp. If left standing, it is ideal to serve between 180 and 190.

The simple act of pouring it in a cup will cool it by 10 degrees. Adding cream and sugar will cool it another 10-20 degrees or more depending on the temp of the creamer.

It is estimated that the coffee Liebeck spilled on herself was served at 180 degrees and was 170 degrees when she spilled it. Her burns were so bad for the simple fact that she SAT in the puddle of coffee for over a minute.

 

[chcarnage]

Coming next to the USA: gelaterias serving their ice cream at blood heat temperature. Gotta prevent these local frostbites.

I'd prefer getting served really hot coffee over drinking the last sips cold any day of the week.

Punitive damages are a concept that is relatively open to abuse. In my opinion punitions should be fines that are collected by the authorities and not a kind of bonus given to the claimant.

On a sidenote, I have a hard time believing that a cup of hot coffee causes 3rd degree burns if treated immediately. Are there details available of the McDonalds case?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: chcarnage

On a sidenote, I have a hard time believing that a cup of hot coffee causes 3rd degree burns if treated immediately. Are there details available of the McDonalds case?

She did suffer 3rd degree burns and required skin grafts.

The facts are this: She was very old, in her 70s. Elderly skin is very thin and fragile.

She SAT in the puddle of an estimated 170 degree coffee for a minute and a half. A full 90 seconds as it soaked into her sweat pants. In those conditions, a 3rd degree burn is very likely.

Lesson: Never fiddle with your coffee while it's being held between your legs.

 

[getbush]

The data documented McDs held it at 180 to 190. Show me hard data that it was 170 in her lap. You can't. Provide the testimony of the expert thermodynamist that say such. You can't. It is purely conjecture on your part. You say the creamer and sugar cools it more. I don't even need to argue whether and how much it does b/c she didn't add any before spilling it. So...

"Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebecks spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard."

That is documented testimony. Those are the facts. Seven day hospital stay and skin graft surgies from a goddam cup of coffee, and it is completely uneccessary and avoidable.


http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/001070.html


"Owen, you jsut don't get it. Let me speak here as a former restaurant owner, as well as a (usually defense) attorney. The NORMAL temperature to serve coffee is about 145 degrees. Spilling coffee that hot on youself won't cause serious injury. If the coffee served to Ms. Liebeck had been that temperature, and she sued, then of course the case would ahve been silly--but by the same token, she wouldn't have been injured. The crucial point here is that McDonalds caused Ms. Liebeck's injuries by failing to follow industry standards. And youseem to think that putting the coffee between her legs was foolish--and maybe it was, that's why the verdict was reduced for comparative negligence--but note that her injuries would have beenmore horrific if she had been foolish enough to actually drink the stuff.

You talk about how the tort system is supposedly organized to chip away at personal responsibility--but you seem to think that responsibility is a one-way street. What you are really saying is that sellers should have no responsibility for selling unreasonably dangerous products, and that all the responsiblity should be on the consumer.
Posted by: rea on November 22, 2002 06:01 AM

 

[Amused]

The data documented McDs held it at 180 to 190. Show me hard data that it was 170 in her lap. You can't.

Oh for fsck sake use your brain. Do you think the coffee loses NO heat from being poured into a cup and sitting on a cold stainless steel counter top?

Do you think it loses no heat spilling into a lap?

If you can't deal with reality, why even try to communicate with others?

I already provided you with the recommended brewing and serving temps by both the National Coffee Association of the USA and Starbucks. How many more references do you need?

I already posted the industry standard using valid, respected sources. Which happens to be 190-205 brewing and 165-190 serving temps.

And you post some obscure comment from a blog???

Give me a fscking break.

Finally, yes, coffee at the proper temps can cause burns. So what? That's what care is for.

 

[getbush]

Sure it loses some heat. Ten degrees? I dunno, and neither do you, that's the point. You seem stuck on 10. So what if it was 190 to begin with, which is very possible. You're back to 180 - still dangerous. You could post hundreds of opinions from coffee aficianados stating 190 degree coffee is lovely. You won't find me pouring it down my throat, I prefer to use my brain instead of listening to others who say it's ok. They are coffee experts (give me a break) not medical professionals. I posted testimony from a McDonald's official citing the likelihood of burns with liquids over 140 degress. Another who testified about how the danger decreases exponentially as you drop from 180 to a more sane 155. I'm obscure, you're obscure. The comment came from a former restaurant owning attorney.

Are third degree burns and a week long hospital stay from a restaurant beverage acceptable risk? No. I would still like to see you guzzle a 190 degree cup of coffee for your own dose of reality.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
Sure it loses some heat. Ten degrees? I dunno, and neither do you, that's the point. You seem stuck on 10. So what if it was 190 to begin with, which is very possible. You're back to 180 - still dangerous. You could post hundreds of opinions from coffee aficianados stating 190 degree coffee is lovely. You won't find me pouring it down my throat, I prefer to use my brain instead of listening to others who say it's ok. They are coffee experts (give me a break) not medical professionals. I posted testimony from a McDonald's official citing the likelihood of burns with liquids over 140 degress. Another who testified about how the danger decreases exponentially as you drop from 180 to a more sane 155. I'm obscure, you're obscure. The comment came from a former restaurant owning attorney.

Are third degree burns and a week long hospital stay from a restaurant beverage acceptable risk? No. I would still like to see you guzzle a 190 degree cup of coffee for your own dose of reality.

Life has risk. Coffee is served hot. It's a risk. It's served at 180-190 because by the time it's poured in a cup it loses heat. It loses even more when cream and sugar are added. Add cream and sugar to 140 degree coffee and it's luke warm in minutes... not to mention it tastes like crap. Finally it's searved tat hot because coffee is best served directly after brewing, and good coffee is brewed at 190-205 degrees.

Learn what assumed risk is, OK? Stop trying to idiot proof the world. Understand that stupidity sometimes is, and always should be painful.

That comment came from bullsh!t. I already posted proof of what the industry standard is (165-190). He's full of sh!t and just parroting the ambulance chasers talking points.

BTW, I note you have no comment on the fact that NO lawsuits over self inflicted coffee burns have won... even though dozens were attempted since the Liebeck fraud.

I want my coffee served at 180-190. Anything lower sucks. Coffee allowed to cool signifigantly from the brewing temp is simply awful and no longer fresh.

 

[getbush]

Fair enough. Stick your mouth around the spout of their commercial brewer and I'll gladly pull the lever/push the button for you.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
Fair enough. Stick your mouth around the spout of their commercial brewer and I'll gladly pull the lever/push the button for you.

How absurd. Why not lay your tounge on the grill or stick it in the deep fryer?

Food prepration is hot, risky business. Food and coffee is better the hotter it is served.

It's people like you who take all the personal responsibility out of the world, and replace it with a padded, preschool world where anything rsiky is outlawed and everything is geared to the lowest common dominator.

Finally, one last time: Coffee served at 180-190 cools a good 30-40 degrees by the time it's mixed with creamer and sugar and made it to the table. Coffee served at 140 degrees will be lukewarm pisswater by the time it's ready to consume.

 

[getbush]

There is a balance. Things are not one-sided. I'll give you an example. I'm in favor of persaonl responsibility too, believe it or not, but there are limits to everything. Example: Person walks into pharmacy. Picks up a refill of a chronic med, along side a new med for some transient acute ailment. New med has a previously known and documented interaction with the regular one ceasing it's action and said person dies. Drug interaction information is readily available to the public. Is he personally responsible for his death? He could have looked up the relevant facts on the two drugs, right? Or are the pharmacist, pharmacy, drug company, and prescribing physician getting lined up for a suit?

My only point is, there is a balance. It is a two way street. You can claim personal responsibility all day long, but it does not make companies immune to any and all liability.

McDonald's own research shows their coffee is purchased for immediate consumption in the car. Your 30-40 degree drop is an asinine assumption. She was burned and suffered horribly and it was 80% the negligence of McDs, 20% her own stupidity. That was the conclusion of the court.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
There is a balance. Things are not one-sided. I'll give you an example. I'm in favor of persaonl responsibility too, believe it or not, but there are limits to everything. Example: Person walks into pharmacy. Picks up a refill of a chronic med, along side a new med for some transient acute ailment. New med has a previously known and documented interaction with the regular one ceasing it's action and said person dies. Drug interaction information is readily available to the public. Is he personally responsible for his death? He could have looked up the relevant facts on the two drugs, right? Or are the pharmacist, pharmacy, drug company, and prescribing physician getting lined up for a suit?

My only point is, there is a balance. It is a two way street. You can claim personal responsibility all day long, but it does not make companies immune to any and all liability.

McDonald's own reserch shows their coffee is purchased for immediate consumption in the car. Your 30-40 degree drop is an asinine assumption. She was burned and suffered horribly and it was 80% the negligence of McDs, 20% her own stupidity. That was the conclusion of the court.

That's the conclusion of a jury duped by a shyster and let down by an inept defense. NO OTHER self inflicted coffee burn case has won since.

Hot coffee is an obvious, assumed risk. To compare it to a hidden threat such as drug interactions is absurd.

Finally, when will you start using your brain? Please explain how a hot liquid can lose no heat being transfered to a cold container, set on a cold countertop, then diluted by another cold liquid and sugar?

She was burned and suffered because of her own stupidity. The old woman SAT in a puddle of hot coffee for a full minute and a half. The decision of the jury is absurd and wrong and has not been repeated since.

 

[getbush]

It is not an obvious assumed risk. "The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee"

160 is hot and accepted. 180-190 is hot and exponentially moer dangerous.

Point out where I said it will lose 0 heat and I will bother to comment more on this. Or, just tell me you have a degree in thermodynamics and I will take your word for it. From the pot to the cup to the car in McDs is not going to take long. YOu know the speed they operate at.

The coffee was held at 180-190 degrees. Experts testified 180 coffee will cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Yes, it soaked into her sweats. Let's see how agile and quick you are to rip your pants off as a 70 year old women sitting in a car.

The coffee was ridiculously hot. No other coffee in the area came within 20 degrees of McDs. That is a an indisputable fact.

Drug interactions are far from hidden, the information is documented and readily available to the public. A responsible person would take the time to research exotic substances before taking them into their system

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: getbush
It is not an obvious assumed risk. "The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee"

160 is hot and accepted. 180-190 is hot and exponentially moer dangerous.

Point out where I said it will lose 0 heat and I will bother to comment more on this. Or, just tell me you have a degree in thermodynamics and I will take your word for it. From the pot to the cup to the car in McDs is not going to take long. YOu know the speed they operate at.

The coffee was held at 180-190 degrees. Experts testified 180 coffee will cause 3rd degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Yes, it soaked into her sweats. Let's see how agile and quick you are to rip your pants off as a 70 year old women sitting in a car.

The coffee was ridiculously hot. No other coffee in the area came within 20 degrees of McDs. That is a an indisputable fact.

Drug interactions are far from hidden, the information is documented and readily available to the public. A responsible person would take the time to research exotic substances before taking them into their system

Yes, we all know that coffee served at the ideal temp is scalding. Why you keep repeating it as if it proves something is beyond me.

Only an idiot doesn't know hot coffee will burn. Sorry, i don't buy it.

BTW, I will never fiddle with a hot cup of coffee between my legs in a moving car. Not now, and not in my 70s. She was a fool.

You keep up with your attempts to child proof the world. And I'll keep ridiculing you.

BTW, did you note that NO self inflicted coffee burn cases have won since? I wonder why?