I am SOOOO Mad!

I love Seattle's Best served at MacDonalds in the west. But best of all I love Tim Hortons served all over Canada and some places in the USA. But I still like my coffee hot... My goodness ten pages over spilt coffee..........

Originally posted by Conniekat8 He may be responsible for his inaction, but not responsible for the other persons actions. Which one carries more weight? Why should the managers inaction carry more weight than the other persons action of very active risk taking in ignoring the rules and common sense and endangering themselves? I think there's been a misconception running throughout this thread -- liability isn't an "either/or" matter as between plaintiff and defendant in personal injury cases. Under the prevailing rule in the United States, the jury apportions fault between the parties and the plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to his own fault, whether it's 10%, 50% or 99% (or any other percentage). So if the jury found that the pool operator bore, say 10% of the fault, the plaintiff's recovery would only be 10% of his total damages. I'm not advocating for or against liability here, but I think we should be clear on what it is we're talking about.

I think it's mostly irrelevant what this lady was doing in addition to drinking coffee in a car. Cars move, the rest just adds to the risk. McDs has tried to warn people by putting a warning on their lids. I'm thinking they should put warnings on car hoods now that read "Might crash, will hurt."

I think their should be an assumed risk there....You screw around with hot coffee in a car....putting cream and sugar in it.....you just might foul up and spill the stuff.....Now, how the heck is that McD's fault....they cna't put signs up at the front of the drive through that say...NO MORONS ALLOWED......

Seems that people are still reacting to the urban legend, rather than the facts. www.centerjd.org/.../MB_mcdonalds.htm www.okbar.org/.../mcdonaldsspeech.pdf From the latter link, I'll post some quotes: After getting their coffee, grandson Chris drove the car away from the drive-in window and stopped so Stella could add cream and sugar, but she had trouble getting off the lid. So she placed the styrofoam cup between her legs, thus freeing up both hands to remove that lid. So she wasn't driving, and the car was stopped. She didn't get a chance to test the temperature, because she was still adding cream and sugar. She *did* place it between her legs, because this 80-year old woman had trouble taking the lid off with one hand. (Which I don't think makes her the complete idiot some of you are painting her as. :) ) Geek asked if the jury had fallen asleep about who was responsible for the spill: For example, in a case in Pennsylvania, a woman also placed a cup of hot coffee between her legs and was burned when it spilled. The court—in dismissing the case—said in very legalistic language: “a purveyor of hot coffee cannot be held liable for burns sustained by a customer when an external force causes the beverage to spill.” I said that the case was not about the spill, but about the temperature. Simply put: Stella claimed the high temperature of the coffee presented an unreasonable risk of injury. Let's put it this way: if the only difference between coffee A and coffee B is their temperature (similar cups and drive-through windows), and you have many cases of serious (3rd) degree burns for coffee A, and almost no cases for coffee B, then I'd say the too hot temperature is responsible for the 3rd degree burns. (If you accept that sometimes spills happen regardless of the temperature of the beverage or how careful you are.) A survey of restaurants in Albuquerque found coffee was served below 160 degrees; and other fast food chains sold their coffee below 180 degrees. Everyone admits that it is physically impossible to drink coffee at 185 degrees. It’s just too hot!! And if it spills, disaster!! So when people say she should have used common sense, I'd say her common sense told her to expect cooler coffee. :) (Emmett, I can't argue about the fact that the temperatures you listed *can* burn you. But please read one or both of those links, as the risks at 170 degrees are much smaller than 190 degrees.) I'm not going to try to convince Geek or Connie that they are wrong, as they have made clear that their "line-in-the-sand" is different from mine. (Geek has stated his opinion that temperature doesn't matter, and Connie thinks you should expect 3rd degree burns.) But when people accuse this lady of being a money-grubber (when she offered to settle for $20,000, versus the mediator who suggested that McD settle for 200K, versus her spending a week in the hospital and months disabled), then I feel obligated to present more facts. There are enough cases that are (with no argument) frivilous, I think a new poster child should be elected.

OK, so as I understand it, this lady does not have the manual dexterity to manipulate coffee, preferred hot by most people. So, naturally, she chooses to do so in a car, on a slanted surface in cramped quarters and somehow McDs is held responsible. Give me a break. What prevented her from walking inside, ordering the coffee, calmly walking to the counter and putting cream and sugar in it, and then going to her car? Does McDs have the duty to interrogate customers on not only where they plan to drink coffee but also if they have any physical limitations that cause them to ignore common sense and do something silly? Maybe they should pass out insulated body armor before serving coffee. For the record, just because someone offers to settle means absolutely nothing. Would you want to settle if you felt you were not at fault? What is prohibiting people from the basic knowledge that coffee is hot and should be handled with care ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS?

The two coffee makers in our house make fresh coffee at 167 and 172 degrees respectively. That may or may not be norm for household coffee makers. This is hot enough to burn you badly and quickly. How many lawsuits are there for these kinds of units? I think darn near everyone would expect that coffee served in a fast food place (especially stuff served in cups intended to facilitate your getting it back HOT to your office group that elected you to fly the breakfast run) would be at least as hot as what comes out of their home caffeine dispensers. Used as intended (keep in cup till transferred directly to mouth, with normal due caution in taking that first sip to determine drinkability), it is perfectly safe. As with all things, use in unintended ways increases risk. If this lady had poked herself in the eye with the coffee stir and blinded herself would she have gotten a bigger settlement? My solution - outlaw coffee altogether and let people drink a cold, refreshing Diet Coke for their morning caffeine fix. Hmmmm....back in the days when drinking a cold beer whilst operating a pickup truck was a god-given right here in Texas, I had occasion to end up with a lap full of cold brew upon opening a recently agitated can that was between my legs. I wonder if I could have gotten a big settlement for cold-induced shrinkage?

Wow Emmett...you're on to something there...Maybe I should have brought suit against the Pacific Ocean after I swam Alcatraz and the Golden Gate Bridge because I had to get a mag glass and tweezers to take a leak after both races....

I can see that a rewording of the liability waiver required for OW swims is in the cards. emmEtt

Still love my coffee hot... if I spill it I hope it misses me. George Park www.swimdownhill.com