Hot coffee. I Hate the dept of commerce

[jim49er]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxOIBzBBjh0

[ctb619]

Do you mean chamber of commerce?

[libertarian4321]

That movie was one of the most one-sided diatribes posing as a "documentary" I've ever seen. Michael Moore is "fair and balanced" by comparison.

A move written and directed by a trial lawyer, and funded by trial lawyers, in an effort to keep the money flowing to her and her trial lawyer friends.

Basically, she's butt hurt because companies and citizen groups have attempted tort reform to limit the ridiculous law suits that lawyers like Saladoff (the director of the movie) have been getting rich off of for years.

[redbluepill]

I know this is an old thread but as a strong opponent of frivolous lawsuits I am sick of this lawsuit being the poster child of frivolous lawsuits. I side with the woman in this case. First of all, this was not an isolated incident. There were at least 700 previous documented cases of severe burns being caused by their coffee. McDonald's had a policy of keeping their coffee at least 20 degrees hotter than most other establishments. 180-190 degrees is indeed excessive and reckless. After the lawsuit McDonalds lowered the temperature to 158 degrees.

While I do agree that the woman was partly to blame since she spilled the coffee on herself, (and the jury agreed too by saying she was "20% responsible"), McDonald's showed clear negligence and was rightly held responsible.

[kpitcher]

Whenever I hear of this hot coffee case, I think of this case - mom leaves baby unattended in bathroom sink, kid brother turned on hot water, kids gets scalded. Family sues everyone under the sun and gets millions. Blaming the plumber who installed it 13 years prior is insane. This also made the cost of every hot water heater instantly jump after the case.


Washing Dc area plumbing contractor Stevens should know, having just settled out of court a scalding-injury lawsuit against his firm for $15 million. In the suit the suit, the parents of four year old India Gomez sought damages for injuries stemming from an accident in which the girl was burned. When the girl was an infant, her mother left her unattended in a bathroom sink, and her three-year-old brother came in and turned on the hot water

Stevens was included in the suit ebcause he had installed the water heater in the apartment 13 years before. Also named were the water heater manufacturer, the gas valve manufacturer, the local gas utility, and the porperty manager. Despite that Stevens installed the heater according to code and all standard practices at the time, his insurance company decided against defending the case in court.

[Acala]

I know this is an old thread but as a strong opponent of frivolous lawsuits I am sick of this lawsuit being the poster child of frivolous lawsuits. I side with the woman in this case. First of all, this was not an isolated incident. There were at least 700 previous documented cases of severe burns being caused by their coffee. McDonald's had a policy of keeping their coffee at least 20 degrees hotter than most other establishments. 180-190 degrees is indeed excessive and reckless. After the lawsuit McDonalds lowered the temperature to 158 degrees.

While I do agree that the woman was partly to blame since she spilled the coffee on herself, (and the jury agreed too by saying she was "20% responsible"), McDonald's showed clear negligence and was rightly held responsible.

There is a long thread on this. Literally BILLIONS of people have ordered hot coffee from McDonalds. This woman dumps hers in her own crotch through her own carelessness. Too bad for her. But because the tort system has been perverted into a corrupt graft machine, and because this woman refused to take responsibility for her own carelessness, billions of other people now can't get their coffee as hot as they might want it.

[muh_roads]

I'm indifferent on this. I do get annoyed when someone wins an insane amount of money in a lawsuit, but I also agree with the Hot Coffee documentary that the system we have is there for a reason...it is to put the average user on an equal level playing field with huge corporations. I'm inclined to say I don't want that system taken away because it prevents the average person from being walked on.

[libertarian4321]

I know this is an old thread but as a strong opponent of frivolous lawsuits I am sick of this lawsuit being the poster child of frivolous lawsuits. I side with the woman in this case. First of all, this was not an isolated incident. There were at least 700 previous documented cases of severe burns being caused by their coffee. McDonald's had a policy of keeping their coffee at least 20 degrees hotter than most other establishments. 180-190 degrees is indeed excessive and reckless. After the lawsuit McDonalds lowered the temperature to 158 degrees.

While I do agree that the woman was partly to blame since she spilled the coffee on herself, (and the jury agreed too by saying she was "20% responsible"), McDonald's showed clear negligence and was rightly held responsible.

Nonsense.

First off, the 700 complaints was for ANY kind of burn- most were minor.

That is out of TENS OF BILLIONS of customers served worldwide.

Yes, McDonalds lowered their temperature (actually 10 degrees) as a result of this frivolous lawsuit. However, many other companies, including Starbucks, and other large sellers, continue to serve coffee as hot, or even hotter, than McD's pre- lawsuit.

McDonalds did NOT serve the coffee hot to be "evil" or trying to "screw the customer" to increase their profit.

In fact, it's CHEAPER for McDonalds to serve the coffee colder (costs a lot less in energy- that adds up when you serve billions of cups). They served it hot because a lot of people grab the coffee in the morning "to go" and don't drink it until they get to the office- the idea is for the coffee to still be hot when they get to their destination (do you like luke warm coffee in the morning?). Of course, this is the same reason Starbucks DOES THE SAME THING!

One idiot spills hot coffee on her lap, gets a slick trial lawyer and a friendly vendor, and the idiot and her lawyers get rich.

I say let the market decide, not slick lawyers.

[Acala]

I'm indifferent on this. I do get annoyed when someone wins an insane amount of money in a lawsuit, but I also agree with the Hot Coffee documentary that the system we have is there for a reason...it is to put the average user on an equal level playing field with huge corporations. I'm inclined to say I don't want that system taken away because it prevents the average person from being walked on.

I agree that we should not do away with the system. That isn't necessary. All you really need to do is take the profit out of it. Make the person or company that causes harm pay for the damage they cause AND NOTHING MORE. That would eliminate the corruption the lawyers have introduced into the system and return it to its proper role.

[LibForestPaul]

Nonsense.

First off, the 700 complaints was for ANY kind of burn- most were minor.

That is out of TENS OF BILLIONS of customers served worldwide.

Yes, McDonalds lowered their temperature (actually 10 degrees) as a result of this frivolous lawsuit. However, many other companies, including Starbucks, and other large sellers, continue to serve coffee as hot, or even hotter, than McD's pre- lawsuit.

McDonalds did NOT serve the coffee hot to be "evil" or trying to "screw the customer" to increase their profit.

In fact, it's CHEAPER for McDonalds to serve the coffee colder (costs a lot less in energy- that adds up when you serve billions of cups). They served it hot because a lot of people grab the coffee in the morning "to go" and don't drink it until they get to the office- the idea is for the coffee to still be hot when they get to their destination (do you like luke warm coffee in the morning?). Of course, this is the same reason Starbucks DOES THE SAME THING!

One idiot spills hot coffee on her lap, gets a slick trial lawyer and a friendly vendor, and the idiot and her lawyers get rich.

I say let the market decide, not slick lawyers.

Who awarded the damages? Lawyers, judges, cops?