NJ woman hit by ball sues Little Leaguer

[bbrages]

The numbers came from expert testimony in the trial concerning standards for other fastfood chains. Right or wrong, that was the testimony.

Here's a news story where they measured coffee temps at local chains: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/new...s-to-the-test.

(I think someone was suing Chick-fil-a for a burn...)

Seems like 170°F is a pretty typical serving temperature for fast food places these days.

So, IMO, the expert witnesses in the McDonalds case were not being accurate.

[CircleChange11]

Here's a news story where they measured coffee temps at local chains: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/new...es-to-the-test.

(I think someone was suing Chick-fil-a for a burn...)

Seems like 170°F is a pretty typical serving temperature for fast food places these days.

So, IMO, the expert witnesses in the McDonalds case were not being accurate.

Is it possible that MORE places have conducted similar "cost analysis" actions where storing the coffee at higher than "safe" temperatures saves money in the end (even when factoring in lawsuit payouts)? Or at least the combination of [1] saving money, [2] providing better taste.

I'm not a coffee drinker. So when I get coffee, I usually end up frustrated thinking [1] Is this stuff ever going to cool off so I can actually drink it? and [2] Why didn't anyone tell me I'd have to take a BM exactly 13 minutes after drinking it?

[bbrages]

I am a coffee drinker, just Starbucks and stuff from home mostly. But I can't ever drink it right away -- it's too hot.

Baseball content: My son had a friend on his team last year -- his dad would drink hot coffee while watching a 90+ degree game in the sun in June. I can't understand that.

[songtitle]

I have learned more about coffee in this thread than ever before.

[mudvnine]

I'm no coffee expert, but I certainly didn't "make up" the standards. The numbers came from expert testimony in the trial concerning standards for other fastfood chains. Right or wrong, that was the testimony.

C'mon "Root", I'm surprised that you use "expert testimony in the trial" as your logic on what temperature coffee should be served at in a restaurant, especially including the "standards for other fastfood chains" in the same sentence.

Everyone here knows that "expert testimony" means simply that one lawyer was able to find someone with some letters behind his name, to state an "opinion" under oath, to what the lawyer wanted him to say. How many times have we heard one "expert witness's" opinion get shot to hell by another "expert witness" from the other side? "Expert" is only as subjective and/or proven as the jury will believe.

Of course an "expert witness" for the plaintiff is going to try to persuade the jury into thinking that the temperature McDonald's served their coffee at compared to the "other fastfood chains" was too hot, but that doesn't make them right....it only means that the "other fastfood chains" don't care about serving their product at the recommended temperature of the probable REAL "experts", of the National Coffee Association USA (who have no vested interest in the case) tell us it should be.

Put a flimsy Styrofoam cup filled with HOT coffee between your legs and NOT expect to get burned if you spill it....seriously? Wow, just wow....

It's people like Ms. Liebeck and Ms. Lloyd that make ya wonder, if "ignorance is bliss", why aren't there more happy people?

[JCincy]

So, IMO, the expert witnesses in the McDonalds case were not being accurate.

You can find "expert" witnesses hanging out on the street corners near any court.

[tradosaurus]

I am a coffee drinker, just Starbucks and stuff from home mostly. But I can't ever drink it right away -- it's too hot.

Baseball content: My son had a friend on his team last year -- his dad would drink hot coffee while watching a 90+ degree game in the sun in June. I can't understand that.

I do. He's a coffee fiend!

I've actually done that a few times.

[Roothog66]

C'mon "Root", I'm surprised that you use "expert testimony in the trial" as your logic on what temperature coffee should be served at in a restaurant, especially including the "standards for other fastfood chains" in the same sentence.

Everyone here knows that "expert testimony" means simply that one lawyer was able to find someone with some letters behind his name, to state an "opinion" under oath, to what the lawyer wanted him to say. How many times have we heard one "expert witness's" opinion get shot to hell by another "expert witness" from the other side? "Expert" is only as subjective and/or proven as the jury will believe.

Of course an "expert witness" for the plaintiff is going to try to persuade the jury into thinking that the temperature McDonald's served their coffee at compared to the "other fastfood chains" was too hot, but that doesn't make them right....it only means that the "other fastfood chains" don't care about serving their product at the recommended temperature of the probable REAL "experts", of the National Coffee Association USA (who have no vested interest in the case) tell us it should be.

Put a flimsy Styrofoam cup filled with HOT coffee between your legs and NOT expect to get burned if you spill it....seriously? Wow, just wow....

It's people like Ms. Liebeck and Ms. Lloyd that make ya wonder, if "ignorance is bliss", why aren't there more happy people?

In a case like this, an expert on at what temp coffee tastes best is irrelevant. The witnesses in such a case would only testify on two subjects. 1) at what temperature do otheres in the same industry serve their coffee and 2) at what temperature does a liquid scald human skin. It doesn't matter what National Coffee Association thinks. Their recommendations are based simply on taste. Negligence has specific legal definitions. The elements of such a case would simply require that Plaintiff prove that their was a danger of injury, that McDonalds was aware of that danger and that they did not comply with the commonly accepted practices of their injury. They easily proved all of that. Now, the jury usually wouldn't give anything abopve actual damages, but, in this case, they were simply offended by McDonald's attitude on the stand. They seem to basically say they didn't give a %$#%, profits were their main concern. Another of my favorites are companies that put up signs saying they won't be held legally responsible. For example, we've all seen the signs on the back of a dumptruck. Simply putting up a sign saying you won't be responsible doesn't resolve you of liability.

[tradosaurus]

You people who won't drink coffee hot.

If I want to drink cold coffee I'll just have a Guiness Stout.

[Roothog66]

Interestingly, the jury did apportion 20% of the blame on the plaintiff.

[Roothog66]

Heck, when I was in law school, there was an entire course on WalMart litigation. At any given time, WalMart has 10,000 lawsuits in the system. they have a strategy of "no settlements."

[real green]

You guys crack me up!

McD's made a decission to serve coffee extra hot coffee to lower the amount of refills and save money while admitting they knew customers were at a "higher" risk of getting burned. McD's also admits the cost analysis of litigation from burned customers vs savings of coffee favored the hotter coffee.

Customer receives 3rd degree burns from said coffee and spends 8 days in the hospital. Request McD's pays for outstanding medical expense and was denied. While I admit I have held many a drink between my legs including coffee, I would never expect third degree burns if spilt.

Reminds me of a joke:

After having their 10th child, a Kentucky couple decided that was enough. So the husband went to his doctor and told him that he and his wife didn't want to have any more children. The doctor told him that there was a procedure called a vasectomy that could fix the problem.

The doctor told the man that he was to go home, get a cherry bomb, put it in a can, then hold the can up to his ear and count to ten.

The Kentuckian said to the doctor, "I may not be the smartest man, but I don't see how putting a cherry bomb in a can next to my ear is going to help me."

So the couple drove to Ohio to get a second opinion. The doctor was just about to tell them about the procedure for a vasectomy when he noticed they were from Kentucky. This doctor also told the man to go home and get a cherry bomb, place it in a tin can, hold it next to his ear, and count to 10.

Figuring that both doctors couldn't be wrong, the man went home, lit a cherry bomb, and put it in a can. He held the can up to his ear and began to count: "1, 2, 3, 4, 5..." Then he paused, placed the can between his legs, and resumed counting on his other hand.

[songtitle]

Heck, when I was in law school, there was an entire course on WalMart litigation.

I wonder if WalMart being non-union is just a funny coincidence?

[songtitle]

You guys crack me up!

McD's made a decission to serve coffee extra hot coffee to lower the amount of refills and save money while admitting they knew customers were at a "higher" risk of getting burned.

I guess you missed a post above where this is essentially discredited (especially regarding sitting in it between your legs). 150 degree coffee causes 3rd degree burns in less than 2 seconds.

[Roothog66]

I guess you missed a post above where this is essentially discredited (especially regarding sitting in it between your legs). 150 degree coffee causes 3rd degree burns in less than 2 seconds.

Song, you gonna go with a good American court decision or one of them Redcoat courts?

[real green]

I guess you missed a post above where this is essentially discredited (especially regarding sitting in it between your legs). 150 degree coffee causes 3rd degree burns in less than 2 seconds.

http://www.accuratebuilding.com/serv...ding_graph.pdf

But I thought the "industry Standard" was determined to be between 135-145. At 185-190 the burn is almost instant at 140 it takes 5 seconds! Five seconds is an iternity when getting burned. That is also a constant temp of 140. Also at 140 how quickly is the temp dropping when the liquid is spilled. These times are based on constant exposure to that temp. For example sticking your hand in a pot holding 140 degrees for 5 seconds not 140 degree spilt over for a fraction of a second and the liquid holding on your skin for five seconds.

[The Uncoach]

This thread is amazing. Even when presented with the facts of the case and the decision reached by the US court system, there are still people clinging to the wrong side of an argument.

[d-mac]

This thread is amazing. Even when presented with the facts of the case and the decision reached by the US court system, there are still people clinging to the wrong side of an argument.

It's par for the course on this board.

[CircleChange11]

This thread is amazing. Even when presented with the facts of the case and the decision reached by the US court system, there are still people clinging to the wrong side of an argument.

Some have emotional investments in their opinions, some don't.

[bbrages]

Some have emotional investments in their opinions, some don't.

All people do.

[JCincy]

This thread is amazing. Even when presented with the facts of the case and the decision reached by the US court system, there are still people clinging to the wrong side of an argument.

Courts can make mistakes. Or do you believe the Dred Scott v. Sanford resulted in a good decision by the U.S. Supreme Court?

[mudvnine]

Since the US Court system and the decisions rendered by "our peers" is evidently infallible, let me just share a couple things to save our "system" some money in the future.....

Continually and intentionally inhaling smoke, can lead to cancer and death. Seriously, I'm not kidding....yet there are still lawsuits filed by individuals who just didn't seem to get the memos from the 1950's.

So if you don't smoke, don't start, if you do smoke, you've now been warned that it may kill you....so please put it in your will that when you die from it, your family cannot sue because you were a dumbazz who thought the "light" cigarettes were somehow healthier for you.

In another public service announcement: Hey y'all, coffee's still HOT, don't spill it in your crotch, it will probably hurt, and you could get burned.

Oh, and wear your seatbelts, if you ride a motorcycle wear a helmet, don't drink and drive, and if you point anything that even "looks" like a gun at a police officer (yes, even if it's your cellphone) you may get shot (and that may even kill you)....so don't do that. I don't need my tax dollars going to defending our city's tax dollars from your family, because you too were a dumbazz.

And then folks whine about "nanny state laws".....it's no wonder politicians feel the need to pass laws to protect people from their dumazz selves.

[Jake Patterson]

It's par for the course on this board.

We don't hold ownership on ignorance... It's everywhere.

Even the OP... I am certain there are more facts than we know.

[CircleChange11]

The issue isn't whether coffee is hot, (1) how hot and (2) whether the company knew it was dangerously hot.

Cigs are a health hazard. But a company packaging regular cigs as "light" cigs is another story, as would be including unlisted dangerous ingredients.

Firecrackers can be dangerous. But a company that decides to save money by using fuses that burn excessively fast so that regular use may be unreasonably dangerous might have some liability for it.

We all know, from experience, that pizza cheese/sauce is hot. But if you order a pizza and your 5th takes a bite and suffers severe burns in their mouth and the company knowingly served the pizza at a ridiculously high temp without informing the customer, they may be liable.

It just wouldn't be by default a case of "You dumb kid/parent you should know pizza can be hot (especially when the steam or heat from the sauce could be covered by the cheese).

Certainly we've all had some microwave food that was merely warm on the outside but lava on the inside. If such a thing led to serious health damages, a company that knew of this without warning the consumer under directed use (followed the directions) may be liable.

It's not that just certain things are dangerous, but whether they are more dangerous that advertised, and if the company knew that.

[TexAg]

I've been wanting a nice cup of coffee all day, but now I just want some pizza.