See...you guys go and make me agree with Sam now... -----Original Message----- From: Sam [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:39 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: That McDonald's spilt coffee case
We go over this every year. Here's my summation: Coffee association recommends a brewing temperature of at least 190% Most places that sell coffee, Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts and even McDonalds still serve at 190%. The reason she got burned was because she put the cup between her legs and removed the lid. Then when the obvious happened, she refused to pull down her jogging pants (because her grandson was with her) which kept the scalding liquid on her skin. The fact that for 50 maybe 100 years places have been selling scalding hot coffee with very few morons getting seriously hurt speaks volumes. . On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > This was not simply a case of a careless customer. Although this case > has been used since as an example of how people refuse to take > responsibility for their actions and how unfair the courts are to > businesses, that does not seem to reflect the reality. > > > " Here are the pertinent facts: > > - Stella was in the passenger seat > - The car was parked > - Stella held the coffee between her knees to open the lid, the coffee > spilled > - Stella suffered 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts > - The coffee at that McDonald's location brewed coffee at 193 degrees F, > 3 degrees hotter than McDonald's prescribed range of 180-190 > - The McDonald's range was 30 degrees F hotter than what home coffee > makers brew at and 10-20 degrees hotter than the optimum temperature for > extraction > - Liquid at 180 degrees F will cause 3rd degree burns to human tissue > with less than 1 second of exposure > - McDonalds had received thousands of complaints about the temperature > of their coffee resulting in burns, to which they took no action > - Liability for the burns was split between McDonalds and Stella 80:20% > - Only 200K before contributory negligence (before reducing by the 20% > Stella was responsible) were compensatory damages (pain & suffering, > medical bills, out of pocket expenses, etc.) the remainder was punitive > damages meant to give incentive to McDonalds to reduce the > temperature of > their coffee > - The judge reduced the total award to $650,000 > - McDonalds appealed and negotiated a settlement below $500,000 > > > This is not a simple case of a woman being careless and getting a > minor burn because she spilled a little coffee on her, nor is it a > case where someone received a huge amount of money based on a frivolous law suit. > > Given this set of facts in that jurisdiction I am shocked that > McDonalds did not settle the claim out of court, as they could have > probably done so for $150-$200K and avoided the punitive damages. > Ultimately, the compensatory damages were pretty reasonable, the trier > of fact assessed an appropriate level of contributory negligence, and > while the punitives were quite high; however, the system worked > exactly as it was supposed to when the judge stepped in to give a more > reasonable punitive award.- Michael Wulfe, Quora" > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:368090 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
