[Jackie Chiles]

Originally Posted by jpnh

Not so much jackie

The fact are on my side with multiple cases on the same issue coming out against the plaintiff and ruling for personal responsibility

You've only got one rogue tear jerker of a case supporting your argument.

Facts 1
Feelings 0

The point has passed you by. Sorry.

[MalibuBimmer]

Originally Posted by eluded

I would pull the data just to determine the amount of negligence

Well, if the dealer is negligent, it doesn't make any difference how "much" negligence there is. (I.e., simple negligence or "gross negligence.") The dealer, as bailee for hire, is liable in California. Liability is for all damages, which would include repair, loss of use and probably loss of future value (although you often have to fight for that one in California).

On the other hand, getting the black box data could get the employee fired. The dealer and its risk management people will probably be looking at that so it doesn't hurt to ask for it; and since it's your car you are entitled to it. (You could publicly shame the dealer with it. Some dealers might be sensitive to that and might be more responsive in giving the car owner full compensation. Many won't unless pushed.)

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Jackie Chiles

The point has passed you by. Sorry.

The comedy of it is that you keep trying to fantasize that you're not only the defeated end of the topic

Let me guess.....you were a hillary voter and are still crying about the "popular vote?

[Jackie Chiles]

Originally Posted by jpnh

The comedy of it is that you keep trying to fantasize that you're not only the defeated end of the topic

Let me guess.....you were a hillary voter and are still crying about the "popular vote?

[RM7]

Originally Posted by jpnh

Not so much jackie

The fact are on my side with multiple cases on the same issue coming out against the plaintiff and ruling for personal responsibility

You've only got one rogue tear jerker of a case supporting your argument.

Facts 1
Feelings 0

Oh really, the facts are on your side? I don't care who or what supports "my argument", the facts were decided by judge and jury.

Trial and verdict[edit]
The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3]
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[2] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[17]
A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[16] Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[2] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times less than the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[18]

The idea is not that it's hot coffee and it spilled, the question is, is it unreasonably hot? Does it constitute an unreasonable hazard if spilled? Did McDonalds take reasonable precautions before serving this product to the public? There are regulations on hazmat and handling, but if you are going to make something that is more dangerous than many forms of hazmat, and offer it to the public, there's a responsibility that goes along with it, because while you may think you have everything in "control", it's reasonable to assume that accidents and human factors are going to happen. If the person handing the coffee out the window slips and drops it, will it be a pissed off customer that gets some free coffee vouchers and a car cleaning, or one that needs freaking skin grafts and now needs disability and has lifelong quality of life issues and expenses due to 3rd degree burns, because in the real world, these things happen, and we can't expect human beings, the customer or the person serving the coffee, to be perfect. We can only expect that the company took reasonable precautions, which in this case, they did not.

Do you think the outcome would be the same if McDs used a cup that is spill proof or protected in some way to minimize spills? If they required the person to sign a waiver accepting responsibility for the coffee, stating what the temperature is? If they even advertised the temperature with a bigger warning (IE: Warning: Coffee may be up to 190°F) in a way that the custmer could see before actually handling? You can put a warning on a cup to cover your rear end, but that doesn't mean you made any attempt to warn people. It's more of a "statement' if they are handing it to you on the cup, as a warning is something that happens before an event.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Oh really, the facts are on your side? I don't care who or what supports "my argument", the facts were decided by judge and jury.



The idea is not that it's hot coffee and it spilled, the question is, is it unreasonably hot? Does it constitute an unreasonable hazard if spilled? Did McDonalds take reasonable precautions before serving this product to the public? There are regulations on hazmat and handling, but if you are going to make something that is more dangerous than many forms of hazmat, and offer it to the public, there's a responsibility that goes along with it, because while you may think you have everything in "control", it's reasonable to assume that accidents and human factors are going to happen. If the person handing the coffee out the window slips and drops it, will it be a pissed off customer that gets some free coffee vouchers and a car cleaning, or one that needs freaking skin grafts and now needs disability and has lifelong quality of life issues and expenses due to 3rd degree burns, because in the real world, these things happen, and we can't expect human beings, the customer or the person serving the coffee, to be perfect. We can only expect that the company took reasonable precautions, which in this case, they did not.

Do you think the outcome would be the same if McDs used a cup that is spill proof or protected in some way to minimize spills? If they required the person to sign a waiver accepting responsibility for the coffee, stating what the temperature is? If they even advertised the temperature with a bigger warning (IE: Warning: Coffee may be up to 190°F) in a way that the custmer could see before actually handling? You can put a warning on a cup to cover your rear end, but that doesn't mean you made any attempt to warn people. It's more of a "statement' if they are handing it to you on the cup, as a warning is something that happens before an event.

And back to previous posts which seem to have been ignored

Here's a different summary of the same message......all of their competitors serve coffee at these same temperatures......and continue to do so to this day

The verdict and case actually kind of worked out for McDonald’s. Public opinion over the matter almost wholly sided with McDonald’s, a rare thing for such “little guy vs. corporation” type cases. And now the whole country, and beyond, was discussing and defending McDonald’s and noting the fact that McDonald’s was a place you could get a cheap, piping hot, cup of coffee.

So did anything change as a result of the verdict? Not really. One change that did happen was that McDonald’s and other companies began putting large warning labels on their hot beverages to warn consumers that, well, they’re hot.

They did not, however, seem to reduce the temperature of their coffee, nor have other coffee vendors, with the industry standard still typically being to brew coffee at around 200 degrees Fahrenheit and sell it around 180 degrees Fahrenheit or so, give or take ten degrees. It turns out, customers actually prefer many types of coffee hot…

As such, to avoid similar frivolous lawsuits as much as possible, the solution has largely been the development of better container designs to minimize the risk of spilling the scalding liquid in the first place.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index....ffee-incident/

The "McDonalds" case you're referring to is Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

There have been several cases since then which are similar in allegations but all have been dismissed/lost because they've all been shown to be serving coffee at a temperature that is customary/consistent with industry standards which is generally arount 170-190 degrees f

[RM7]

Originally Posted by jpnh

And back to previous posts which seem to have been ignored

Here's a different summary of the same message......all of their competitors serve coffee at these same temperatures......and continue to do so to this day

The previous posts are ignored because they are irrelevant. The plantiff had to prove in court that the defendant was negligent, based on the facts of that case. They did that and the defendant was unable to provide evidence to the contrary. You can armchair quarterback this all you want, it doesn't change the facts that were presented in this case. Maybe if you were their lawyer everything would have turned out different, right?

There have been several cases since then which are similar in allegations but all have been dismissed/lost because they've all been shown to be serving coffee at a temperature that is customary/consistent with industry standards which is generally arount 170-190 degrees f

And there were several cases where it was shown the coffee hurt people and McDs settled, precedent that they knew it was harmful, before this case even came along, but again, what matters is what happened in that courtroom and whether McDs was negligent in that case. Like I said, you just can't hand over hazmat without warning someone or having some sort of system in place to prevent people from being injured in random but preventable non-intentional accidents. "Hot coffee" is not a temperature setting, so it can mean different things to different people. If you go pick up dry ice at the supermarket, do they just put it in a plastic bag? No, they wrap it/put it in a paper bag. Why do you think this is the case?

You need to read up on human factors engineering and ergonomics.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

The previous posts are ignored because they are irrelevant. The plantiff had to prove in court that the defendant was negligent, based on the facts of that case. They did that and the defendant was unable to provide evidence to the contrary. You can armchair quarterback this all you want, it doesn't change the facts that were presented in this case. Maybe if you were their lawyer everything would have turned out different, right?



And there were several cases where it was shown the coffee hurt people and McDs settled, precedent that they knew it was harmful, before this case even came along, but again, what matters is what happened in that courtroom and whether McDs was negligent in that case. Like I said, you just can't hand over hazmat without warning someone or having some sort of system in place to prevent people from being injured in random but preventable non-intentional accidents. "Hot coffee" is not a temperature setting, so it can mean different things to different people. If you go pick up dry ice at the supermarket, do they just put it in a plastic bag? No, they wrap it/put it in a paper bag. Why do you think this is the case?

You need to read up on human factors engineering and ergonomics.

All irrelevent

You have one case thats an outlier where an abberent verdict was handed own and since then every other case has been dismissed despite the fact that the plaintiffs (mcdonalds, starbucks etc) continue to serve coffee to this day at the same/similar temp that McD's sold it previously

Isnt it about time people started exercising personal responsibility

We're talking about someone fumbling a cup of coffee

We're not talking about a defective cup or dog forbid a server spilling it on the customer

It never ceases to amaze me how few people are willing to accept the consequences of their own fuck ups in life.....

[RM7]

Originally Posted by jpnh

All irrelevent

You have one case thats an outlier where an abberent verdict was handed own and since then every other case has been dismissed despite the fact that the plaintiffs (mcdonalds, starbucks etc) continue to serve coffee to this day at the same/similar temp that McD's sold it previously

Isnt it about time people started exercising personal responsibility

We're talking about someone fumbling a cup of coffee

We're not talking about a defective cup or dog forbid a server spilling it on the customer

It never ceases to amaze me how few people are willing to accept the consequences of their own fuck ups in life.....

It never ceases to amaze me those that hold people to impossible standards that expect everyone to meet their impossible standards. You missed the point where I said the case is judged based on the facts presented in the case. This is how law works. Stop watching Judge Judy and go pick up a few books.

McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

These are the facts of this case. If someone is selling 190° coffee these days and not taking precautions/providing adequate warning, they are setting themselves up for lawsuit. Just like anyone else that does something negligent that can harm the public. You fail to understand it's not that it was 190°, that and the damage it caused was just part of it. I guess if your daughter gets her face burned away by McDs coffee because they failed to take any measures to reduce the risk when she had no reasonable expectation of it being that dangerous, you'll just say "haha!, you idiot!". I know of plenty of frivolous lawsuits in aviation where someone sued even when the cause was the pilot doing something blatantly stupid, as in not unintentional, but intentionally violating their limitations and instructions, but the companies sometimes settle to reduce court costs. The McDs case is not a frivolous lawsuit, it's a poster-child for bringing people out of the woodwork who read internet memes, repose things their friends say, disregard anything that disagrees with their opinions and don't actually do research.

[SakhirM4]

Coffee temperature

In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two locations tested served hotter coffee than McDonald's.

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[33] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee. The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).

[RM7]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

Coffee temperature

In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two locations tested served hotter coffee than McDonald's.

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[33] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee. The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).

There is good info in there, not exactly unbiased, but you can read between the lines-because it's not the temperature, it's what preventative measures are in place to prevent that from causing unreasonable harm. It doesn't necessitate turning down the temp, although that's an option, it does necessitate mitigating the risk.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

There is good info in there, not exactly unbiased, but you can read between the lines-because it's not the temperature, it's what preventative measures are in place to prevent that from causing unreasonable harm. It doesn't necessitate turning down the temp, although that's an option, it does necessitate mitigating the risk.

We have one single case which was successfully litigated and McDonalds was held to be liable.

At the same time we have DOZENS of similar attempts to litigate and universally the cases have been dismissed'

At the same time most if not all coffee shops continue to sell coffee at the same/similar temp which was served to the woman who spilled it all over herself

the problem isnt the coffee

the problem exists between the drivers seat and the steering wheel/coffee cup

You might as well blame phones manufacturers for distracted driving accidents instead of the dope using the phone

[RM7]

Originally Posted by jpnh

We have one single case which was successfully litigated and McDonalds was held to be liable.

This is wrong. Why do you keep pretending it is right? This was not the only case where McD has paid out damages.

Were you on the jury?

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

This is wrong. Why do you keep pretending it is right? This was not the only case where McD has paid out damages.

Were you on the jury?

But it IS right

The problem wasnt the coffee

the problem was the tool user who failed to properly handle the tool

Do you blame the scissor manufacturer when you run with scissors and fall on them?

Do you blame the knife manufacturer for making your knives sharp when you fumble it and cut the shit out of your hand while cutting a bagel?

Do you blame phones for distracted driving?

Do you blame gun manufacturers for murders?

You cant blame the inanimate object when the problem is the tool user

[Jackie Chiles]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

This is wrong. Why do you keep pretending it is right? This was not the only case where McD has paid out damages.

Were you on the jury?

James, I'm not sure if there were other cases where a defendant was held liable for serious burns caused by coffee. If you have a link, please share.

In the spirit of meaningful discourse:

JP, I think you are right about the case being an outlier.

You and I do have fundamental disagreements on a philosophical level though. First, there can be shared fault. Second, a corporation has responsibility for goods it puts into the stream of commerce. This equates to personal responsibility. This does not mean that a corporation acts as an insurer, but Google the term "strict products liability" for some background on the relevant legal theory. Third, outlier or not, the Liebeck case was appealed and the jury verdict finding McDonald's negligent was upheld. Different facts, different evidence, different legal standards can all work to a party's advantage or disadvantage in a given jurisdiction. Some things that would be legally negligent in NY might not be in TX, for example. So negligence is not determined by tallying up how a number of similar cases accross the country have turned out.

JC

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Jackie Chiles

James, I'm not sure if there were other cases where a defendant was held liable for serious burns caused by coffee. If you have a link, please share.

In the spirit of meaningful discourse:

JP, I think you are right about the case being an outlier.

You and I do have fundamental disagreements on a philosophical level though. First, there can be shared fault. Second, a corporation has responsibility for goods it puts into the stream of commerce. This equates to personal responsibility. This does not mean that a corporation acts as an insurer, but Google the term "strict products liability" for some background on the relevant legal theory. Third, outlier or not, the Liebeck case was appealed and the jury verdict finding McDonald's negligent was upheld. Different facts, different evidence, different legal standards can all work to a party's advantage or disadvantage in a given jurisdiction. Some things that would be legally negligent in NY might not be in TX, for example. So negligence is not determined by tallying up how a number of similar cases accross the country have turned out.

JC

Regardless of the finding of this one case it is in fact an outlier

Its an abberation

And yes....there ARE cases where its possible that fault can be shared

If the lid on the cup had popped off because it wasnt properly put on OR the cup was defective and the the bottom fell out

But these are all not relevent to THIS case

The plaintiff flubbed the handling of the cup of coffee and spilled it all over herself

Its operator error and to say that her being burned sucks is an unbelievable gross understatement

But in the end no one is to blame but her for flubbing the handling of the cup of coffee

It would have been no different if she drove into a tree and was injured while talking on the phone

The phone didnt make her do it....neither did the cup of coffee

The fault is with the tool user

And I'm going to venture a guess that this was far from her first time purchasing coffee from McD and that she had prior knowledge that they served "HOT" coffee