Starbucks Sued Over Tip Jar

[Selden]

I dislike tip jars in places like Starbucks, but this is as ridiculous as the "hot coffee" lawsuit against McDonalds a few years ago: Starbucks Sued Over Tip Jar. The guy who killed the victim doesn't have any money, so let's sue Starbucks instead. Sheesh.

[Lmar]

They're blaming Starbucks, who they allege "invited criminal behavior" by leaving tip jars "within reach of customers."

 

What a bunch of B.S!!

[Quinn]

Is this why Staqrbucks made a big deal over allowing concealed carry a while back? Come in for coffee, stay to protect our tip jar.

 

---

 

 

[4wheeldog]

Is this why Staqrbucks made a big deal over allowing concealed carry a while back? Come in for coffee, stay to protect our tip jar.

 

---

 

 

Nobody with CCW would protect a tip jar......An employee, or any other human being, certainly.......But a tip jar, not a chance. Just sayin'.

[Bullett]

I feel sorry for the man's family, but who in their right mind is going to chase a thief who took a tip jar with less than $5 in it?

 

I would be willing to bet you that the company has a policy that instructs employees to simply hand over the cash in the event of a robbery.

[Twisties]

As reported, it certainly sounds like a frivolous case. If this is an accurate account, very likely will be dismissed early in the process, or at least ultimately result in a win for Starbucks.

 

Unless Starbuck's policy was for employees to chase thieves.

[Powers77]

What? They did not include Ford in the suit? Their product did the damage and they should have known to make vehicles that would not injury people when used to back over someone.

 

[Whip]

I feel sorry for the man's family, but who in their right mind is going to chase a thief who took a tip jar with less than $5 in it?

 

I would be willing to bet you that the company has a policy that instructs employees to simply hand over the cash in the event of a robbery.

 

If they have a weapon I agree...

 

 

If they are snatch and grab....

 

My employees will take you down for a pack of gum.

 

....and a reward on their next check.

 

We have less than 2% shrinkage and have arrested over 3000 shoplifters. (400 in one year alone..1994)

 

It has become a game in my stores.

 

I have accused my employees of sending their relatives in to steal just so they can arrest them and get the bonus.

 

 

 

 

 

[philbytx]

I'd REALLY start to worry if you sent YOUR relatives in to steal something Whip

[plext]

The thing is, if you read the documents this guy was not an employee of Starbucks, but rather a customer waiting to be served. Guess he really wanted to give a tip.

 

The US legal system for all its merits really does have some zany moments and you'd have to assume (hope?) that this is one of them, as if it had legs you'd suddenly want to be very concerned where you parked your bike:

What? You left it outside the cafe while you had lunch? Don't you realise what a temptation that was for thieves? There's been an accident because the thief couldn't ride and twenty people on a bus got hurt. Please pay now.

 

Scary really.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

FWIW, I believe in some/most/all jurisdictions it is illegal to leave your keys in the ignition of your car (and presumably also your bike) while leaving it unattended. The rationale is that it invites criminal behavior by making it just a bit too easy to steal your vehicle. If that law really does exist as I remember it, I'm sure it will be pointed to as some kind of precedent.

[plext]

That is the law as I understand it here and your surmise could well be true, which opens up interesting lines of thought on its own.

 

One suspects in this case however, that proving that the placement of the jar invited theft to reckless degree, which invited random people to chase the miscreant to their own demise is perhaps a bridge too far.

 

Was it reasonable to expect that the jar would be stolen and that somebody would give chase so doggedly as to result in their own death? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I will note that I have seen a lot of such jars and have never considered such an outcome; perhaps I'm unreasonable.

 

A couple of years back I detained a bag snatcher at a shopping centre while he awaited the pleasure of the constabulary. I was not hurt in the tackle and restraint, but then I'm trained in those areas and my thought process before involving myself no doubt accounted for that. Had I been injured would it have been reasonable for me to sue the woman who lost her bag after carrying it so flagrantly stealable in a public place? I suggest not; I made my own decision and acted upon it, consequences were my own issue at that juncture.

[Dave McReynolds]

"Attractive nuisance" is a similar concept in the law, meaning that you created a situation on your property that is likely to attract children who will predictably want to play in your pile of loose lumber, or whatever, and if they get injured, you will be held responsible since you should have anticipated the problem and done something about it.

 

Tip jars are so ubiquitous that it is hard to imagine applying a similar concept to them. Of course, at one time, so were cigarettes.

[lawnchairboy]

the lawyers will win.

[Lone_RT_rider]

the lawyers will win.

 

They always do Chris. Unless they work for the city. Ohhhhhhhhh EB....

[lawnchairboy]

Oh Shannie Mae.......

[Roadwolf]

but this is as ridiculous as the "hot coffee" lawsuit against McDonalds a few years ago:

 

Lately seeing reference to that instance and now knowing the full story, I'd thought I'd enlighten those that don't have the full story on the McDonald's case... as with everything, there is always another version to the story:

 

From Democracy Now a few months ago:

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/25/do_you_know_the_full_story

 

Partial transcript here for those not inclined to watch the video

 

 

AMY GOODMAN: Hot Coffee is the name of this documentary, and it’s based on your mother’s case. Judy, tell us what happened. What day was it? And really explain. We heard your mother in this documentary when she was filmed talking about it. Talk about it yourself.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Well, whoever I talk to, they don’t have the right story. So I always ask, "What do you think happened?" What really happened was that my nephew was driving the car, not my mother. They drove into a McDonald’s, got coffee and a meal, drove into the parking lot. There were no cup holders in the car, so my mother steadied the cup between her knees and peeled off the lid. The whole cup collapsed.

 

The temperature—McDonald’s required that their temperature be held around 187 degrees.

 

AMY GOODMAN: In a styrofoam cup.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: In a styrofoam cup. And styrofoam will melt at that temperature. She went to the hospital. We thought, oh, she’s in for observation overnight, no problem. But she was in for eight days. She had third-degree burns. She could not—you could not touch that area. She had to have a sheet held up. She—

 

AMY GOODMAN: The pictures that are shown in the film are gruesome.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: They’re very gruesome.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Her thighs.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Yes. She had skin grafts. And the skin—when they started talking about skin grafts, that’s when she became concerned about her money, because she had moved from Tucson to Albuquerque. She wanted to buy a little house. And she thought all of her money would go, because Medicare was only going to pay 80 percent, and so she would have to pay 20 percent. And we started thinking, why is McDonald’s insurance not paying for the medical? I have insurance on my home. If someone comes in and breaks an arm or hurts themselves, I expect my insurance to pay for it. That’s what I’m paying insurance for.

 

So, we wrote a letter to McDonald’s. Chuck and I wrote a letter to McDonald’s, asking them to cover her medical and to check the temperature on the coffee, because it seemed not reasonable that someone would have this kind of an injury from a cup of coffee. They came back with an offer of—what was at that point $10,000 in medical, they came back with an offer of $800. And we were just appalled. We wrote another letter, hadn’t heard from them, started getting very angry about this whole situation, and contacted a lawyer, searched for a lawyer that had already had a case against McDonald’s. And—

 

AMY GOODMAN: A similar case? A case where someone was scalded by hot coffee?

 

JUDY LIEBECK: A similar case, yes. Yes, six years before. And that—

 

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain the issue of this coffee? I mean, how hot is coffee supposed to be?

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Well, a normal home brewer should be between 142 and 162. And of course, when you put it into a ceramic cup, the heat is dissipated. A hundred and eighty-seven degrees, you have two to seven seconds before you have a third-degree burn.

 

AMY GOODMAN: How do you know it was 187 degrees?

 

JUDY LIEBECK: That was in McDonald’s manual. Coffee was to be held at all of their facilities at that temperature, worldwide. And the reason for that, we believe, is that the higher the temperature on the coffee, the longer the shelf life of the pot of coffee. So it was a business decision to do that. But it causes irreparable damage. At 142 to 162 degrees, you have 25 seconds to get away from a third-degree burn. It’s not going to happen.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Chuck Allen, talk about McDonald’s response and how it progressed.

 

CHARLES ALLEN: Well, McDonald’s sent the first letter, and saying this is what we’re going to have. And then, the person that we were working through said, "Please call me." And they said, "Get a lawyer."

 

And so, then McDonald’s decided that they wanted to go to jury trial. And the reason they did that, because New Mexico, up to that point, had never found positively for the plaintiff in a product liability suit, and that is a product liability suit. The decision is, in product liability, is that the product must be used—be able to be used in the way it was intended at the time of sale, or else there must be enough warning that you should do something differently with it. McDonald’s said, "I want to go here, because it’s never found. I want my line drawn in the sand." And there was two court-appointed mediations that they didn’t come to. They wanted jury trial. They said that they wanted to have—McDonald’s wanted to be at jury to get the proper result, so they would no longer have this issue. This didn’t work out for them. They did go to—

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Right. Two days—two days before the court case went to trial, there was a mediation. They sent no one to mediation. And our lawyer had said to us, "If they will settle for some amount of money, you know, $50,000 or something like that, would that be acceptable?" And we said, "That would be wonderful. That’s more than—you know, going to pay for the medical and that sort of thing." And he said, "Well, I would give it to your mother, and I would call it a loss, as far as I’m concerned." McDonald’s was not interested in that. They wanted to go to trial.

 

AMY GOODMAN: And you went to trial.

 

CHARLES ALLEN: We went to trial.

 

AMY GOODMAN: And what did you learn about how many times this has happened to people who go to McDonald’s and get coffee?

 

JUDY LIEBECK: McDonald’s came in with a huge chart with 700 names on it.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, I’m confused. McDonald’s or your lawyer?

 

CHARLES ALLEN: No, McDonald’s.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Other lawyer, their lawyer.

 

CHARLES ALLEN: Their.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Their lawyer, not yours.

 

CHARLES ALLEN: Not ours.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Their lawyer. No, their lawyer.

 

AMY GOODMAN: So, what—why would they say that they had scalded 700 people?

 

CHARLES ALLEN: The reason—

 

JUDY LIEBECK: They felt that it was statistically insignificant. And that’s what they said in court.

 

CHARLES ALLEN: They sell millions of cups of coffee a day. And if you have 700 burns over a period of 10 years, that, to them, is insignificant. The problem was that our lawyer had made a different—had tried a separate case. That name was not on the 700. And so, he was able at that point to bring it into court, saying, "Well, where is the Swick [phon.] case?" It wasn’t there. And so—

 

AMY GOODMAN: But even 700—I mean, you’re talking about more than a person a week is scalded by coffee made by McDonald’s?

 

JUDY LIEBECK: It just seemed that they were so arrogant and so—it was almost sociopathic, that they didn’t—they didn’t think there was anything wrong with this.

 

AMY GOODMAN: So what did the jury decide?

 

CHARLES ALLEN: The jury was, at the last day, told, "You will consider punitive damages." And when they did that, they said, "Well, what should we do for punitive damages, because obviously there isn’t culpability here?" The first thing they decided was that there was a 20 percent problem that Stella actually spilled the coffee on herself.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Twenty-five percent. They found that it was 25 percent her fault.

 

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to—OK, and so, how much?

 

CHARLES ALLEN: And so, that was a twenty—and then they had to reduce that. But then they said, "Punitive damages, we want two or seven days of coffee sales." They chose the two days of coffee sales of only coffee in McDonalds. Those two days happened to be the $2.7 million.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: The judge was so incensed with what had gone on with McDonald’s that he directed the jury to consider punitive damages.

 

AMY GOODMAN: In this documentary, one of the jurors was interviewed, in Hot Coffee.

 

CHARLES ALLEN: Yes.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Mm-hmm. Betty Farnham.

 

AMY GOODMAN: What did she say?

 

CHARLES ALLEN: Yeah. She was incensed.

 

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, there was a very different reaction all over this country. I want to play again what we played in the billboard. I mean, you had every comic making fun.

 

CHARLES ALLEN: Absolutely.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Made famous on Seinfeld.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Still.

 

AMY GOODMAN: On Letterman.

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Still. Toby Keith has a song out right now called the "American Ride." And it says, "Spill a cup of coffee, make a million dollars."

 

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to the clip.

 

CRAIG FERGUSON: Every minute they waste on this frivolous lawsuit, they’re not able to waste on other frivolous lawsuits, like, "Ooh, my coffee was too hot!" It’s coffee!

 

MAN ON THE STREET 3: The woman, she purchased the coffee, and she spilled it on herself. I mean, it wasn’t like the McDonald’s employee took the coffee, threw it on her. Now, that, in itself, then she would have had a lawsuit.

 

WOMAN ON THE STREET 2: It’s just people just are greedy and want money, and they’ll do anything to get it.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Just some of the reaction. Final comments for Judy and Chuck Allen, the final decision?

 

CHARLES ALLEN: In the final decision, 30 days later, we went back into court with McDonald’s asking for the judgment to be thrown out because of a runaway jury. The judge said, "You came into court. You showed what you were. And we were incensed by that, essentially." But he did say, "You thought you saw a light at the end of a tunnel. You did not know it was attached to a train." His words. And then he turned to us and said, "I have the authority to reduce this amount of punitive damage to three times compensatory, and I am exercising that." And so, that’s what he did. So when we walked out of court, the $2.7 million had been reduced to three times compensatory, and then that was the end of the case.

 

AMY GOODMAN: And how much, in the end, did you get?

 

CHARLES ALLEN: In the end was the amount, basically. It was an undisclosed amount, but it was in that neighborhood.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Your mother, a strong woman before this cup of coffee?

 

JUDY LIEBECK: Oh, the week before this happened, she dug out a palm tree in Tucson, she painted a ceiling. A very, very, very strong woman.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Afterwards?

 

JUDY LIEBECK: After this happened, she never got to a point where she could—if her little dachshund dug a hole in her stones in the backyard, she couldn’t take a rake—and it was very difficult for her to even cover that up. So she never regained the quality of life she had before.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to look at several different cases that are highlighted in the film, that is named for the case of your mother, called Hot Coffee, a very different story than one most people know in this country.

[Skywagon]

Interesting. Tip jars aren't allowed in Starbucks in the airport. Don't know if that is Starbucks or Airport lease...

 

Hope this comes out on Starbucks side for the sake of the employees who rely on the income.

 

Once upon a time I was Director of Store Operations for a 4000 store retailer. Policy was simple...give them the cash, it is insured. Never chase...if you do you are fired. I realize this was a patron, not an employee..

[Deadboy]

I'm glad you posted that, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is typically misunderstood and cited by people who have little idea as to what really happened....

[DaveTheAffable]

FWIW, I believe in some/most/all jurisdictions it is illegal to leave your keys in the ignition of your car (and presumably also your bike) while leaving it unattended. The rationale is that it invites criminal behavior by making it just a bit too easy to steal your vehicle. If that law really does exist as I remember it, I'm sure it will be pointed to as some kind of precedent.

 

Nope. No more than leaving your front door unlocked encourages television theft.

 

No keys in ignition rule/law? Safety. A child can start the car and put themselves and others at risk.

 

Locks on guns in some states? Not to keep it from being stolen. To keep it from being used.

[Selden]

Count me among those people. Thanks for the transcript -- I learned a lot.

[Deadboy]

I also heard they had received numerous warning from the local health department regarding the temperature issue. I mean wow, that is hot coffee.....

[Glenn Reed]

Roadwolf,

 

Thanks for the additional info about the McDonald's coffee story. Paul Harvey used to tell a story and then go to "and now, for the rest of the story". That's what this reminds me of. We get the version offered by Leno and Letterman and think we understand what happened and years later you post this and I feel completely different about the situation.

 

Thanks again,

 

Glenn

[leikam]

I look forward to seeing tip jars with the disclaimer:

"Warning: if stolen, do not pursue."

[Glenn Reed]

I look forward to seeing tip jars with the disclaimer:

"Warning: if stolen, do not pursue."

 

Only since there will be lawyers involved, it will go on for many paragraphs in type small enough that nobody will be able to read it (except Keith since he had his eyes lasered...)

[4wheeldog]

I also heard they had received numerous warning from the local health department regarding the temperature issue. I mean wow, that is hot coffee.....

 

What makes it even more ridiculous is the boiling point at ABQ's elevation is only 202 degrees.

[philbytx]

I'm confused. How then is it OK for the local LEO's to have a bait car with the keys in it and allow people to "use" it and then prosecute them? If they injured themselves during the theft, could they then sue them!

[MotorinLA]

They're blaming Starbucks, who they allege "invited criminal behavior" by leaving tip jars "within reach of customers."

 

What a bunch of B.S!!

 

 

I would like to know how the customers are supposed to leave money in the tip jar, if it is NOT within their reach :confused:.

[Lawman]

Is this why Staqrbucks made a big deal over allowing concealed carry a while back? Come in for coffee, stay to protect our tip jar.

 

---

 

 

Nobody with CCW would protect a tip jar......An employee, or any other human being, certainly.......But a tip jar, not a chance. Just sayin'.

 

Wrong..And I'd make no apology for doing it..

 

The basis for liberty stems from an individual's right to own and protect private property..The principal of liberty is worth dying for..

[DiggerJim]

Roadwolf,

 

Thanks for the additional info about the McDonald's coffee story. Paul Harvey used to tell a story and then go to "and now, for the rest of the story". That's what this reminds me of. We get the version offered by Leno and Letterman and think we understand what happened and years later you post this and I feel completely different about the situation.

 

Thanks again,

 

Glenn

 

And this information isn't all you think it is either. Their representation that McDonalds had an abnormal temperature is false. The National Coffee Association & most coffee brewers recommend 197-205 degrees to brew. Home brewers like a drip maker don't get that hot - 185 is the norm but it's certainly not the 160ish they claimed in their interview. They also claimed that it was the same temperature that styrofoam cups melt - does the absurdity of that claim strike anyone? Styrofoam cups actually melt at a temp in excess of 250 degrees.

 

I'm not saying this wasn't a tragedy but an adult took a very hot thing and stuck it between her bare thighs because they had no cup holders (how old was their car anyway? I don't remember the last car I had that didn't have a cup holder.). Is GE responsible when I drop my Thanksgiving turkey on myself as I pull it out of the oven since I have to cook it until it's 190 defrees and I've got all that basting juice boiling in the bottom of the pan? Can I sue the makers of the Fry Daddy because it heats oil so hot I will be immediately burned if I spill it?

 

This country is manic about coffee and the flavor of sub-180 degree coffee is generally unacceptable. Along with the flavor comes risk. Sheesh. Everyone should just drink Coke (in plastic bottles of course so you don't cut yourself).

 

Just sayin...

 

http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71

 

[RPG]

They're blaming Starbucks, who they allege "invited criminal behavior" by leaving tip jars "within reach of customers."

 

What a bunch of B.S!!

 

Hmm, by that definition, anything of value within the store would be subject to the same temptation. Cash drawers, merchandise, light bulbs, employee's jewelry. Wow, looks like common law and common sense took another step backwards.

 

Who is the wretched scumbag attorney please?

 

RPG

[Roadwolf]

I'm not saying this wasn't a tragedy but an adult took a very hot thing and stuck it between her bare thighs because they had no cup holders (how old was their car anyway? I don't remember the last car I had that didn't have a cup holder.).

 

The transcript is only a partial of the entire interview, I cut out the more pertinent parts of the interview which is actually a review of the documentary Hot Coffee which debuted at Sundance... however, the answer to your question was it was a Ford Probe, with no cupholders. They pulled into the parking lot to eat after going through the drive thru and the cup collapsed... their choice of words as to melting may be just semantics.

[DiggerJim]

The transcript is only a partial of the entire interview, I cut out the more pertinent parts of the interview which is actually a review of the documentary Hot Coffee which debuted at Sundance... however, the answer to your question was it was a Ford Probe, with no cupholders. They pulled into the parking lot to eat after going through the drive thru and the cup collapsed... their choice of words as to melting may be just semantics.

 

Ah ha! That changes everything. Of course she's not responsible for what happened. After all it's not like there's a dashboard or floor she could have put it on. She ought to have sued Ford for not putting cupholders in the Probe and Suzanne Somers for marketing the thighmaster used to build up her muscles so she couldn't lightly grasp the cup without crushing it. Definitely not her fault.

 

Semantics...misstatements...prevarications...whatever

 

There are 2 sides to every story and neither is a correct rendition of the truth. Everything is remembered through the observer's own filters. (Heisenberg principle exhibited in humans) Bottom line is we're all paying for her (no Virginia, McDonalds doesn't just suck it up and absorb the expense) and everyone else who pulls a doofus and then needs to blame someone.

 

Personally I'm getting tired of getting ice cream headaches & am put out that I'm expected to either not eat it anymore or eat it slower. I want someone to invent warmer ice cream!

[Selden]

I'm not saying this wasn't a tragedy but an adult took a very hot thing and stuck it between her bare thighs because they had no cup holders (how old was their car anyway? I don't remember the last car I had that didn't have a cup holder.)

I rented a Home Depot (Ford) truck last Thursday. It didn't have cup holders. At the first turn, a styrofoam cup of cold water that I had placed on the seat overturned, soaking the seat of my pants. My reaction was, "Dumb sh!t."

[Twisties]

The transcript is only a partial of the entire interview, I cut out the more pertinent parts of the interview which is actually a review of the documentary Hot Coffee which debuted at Sundance... however, the answer to your question was it was a Ford Probe, with no cupholders. They pulled into the parking lot to eat after going through the drive thru and the cup collapsed... their choice of words as to melting may be just semantics.

 

Ah ha! That changes everything. Of course she's not responsible for what happened. After all it's not like there's a dashboard or floor she could have put it on. She ought to have sued Ford for not putting cupholders in the Probe and Suzanne Somers for marketing the thighmaster used to build up her muscles so she couldn't lightly grasp the cup without crushing it. Definitely not her fault.

 

Semantics...misstatements...prevarications...whatever

 

There are 2 sides to every story and neither is a correct rendition of the truth. Everything is remembered through the observer's own filters. (Heisenberg principle exhibited in humans) Bottom line is we're all paying for her (no Virginia, McDonalds doesn't just suck it up and absorb the expense) and everyone else who pulls a doofus and then needs to blame someone.

 

Personally I'm getting tired of getting ice cream headaches & am put out that I'm expected to either not eat it anymore or eat it slower. I want someone to invent warmer ice cream!

 

Actually, the interview corroborates other accounts of the trial. The pertinent facts have been posted many times on this board. The coffee was hotter than industry standard, McD's knew 700 prior severe burns had occurred and didn't care, the cup collapsed, the lady was burned. McD's played hardball rather than help her with medical bills, and they got burned: By a jury, who heard both sides, in accordance with the rules and the law.

 

The punitive damages did exactly what they were supposed to do: Got McD's to cool off the coffee, and saved society countless $$$'s and grief. We are not paying for it, we are benefiting from this most valuable decision, and the courage of this woman to see her claim through against the odds.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

The punitive damages did exactly what they were supposed to do: Got McD's to cool off the coffee, and saved society countless $$$'s and grief. We are not paying for it, we are benefiting from this most valuable decision, and the courage of this woman to see her claim through against the odds.

 

This doesn't make any sense, Jan. Do you think McDonald's was serving hot coffee because they got some kind of perverse excitement anticipating that some poor old lady might spill some coffee on herself? And that society needed to be protected from that, as it does from a rapist or a gang of street thugs? If not that, what do you think McDonald's motivation was for serving hot coffee?

 

I think McDonald's was serving hot coffee because most of their customers wanted hot coffee. I know that since that judgement, I have been disappointed at times when I have bought coffee at McDonald's that was not hot enough to suit me.

[Twisties]

The punitive damages did exactly what they were supposed to do: Got McD's to cool off the coffee, and saved society countless $$$'s and grief. We are not paying for it, we are benefiting from this most valuable decision, and the courage of this woman to see her claim through against the odds.

 

This doesn't make any sense, Jan. Do you think McDonald's was serving hot coffee because they got some kind of perverse excitement anticipating that some poor old lady might spill some coffee on herself? And that society needed to be protected from that, as it does from a rapist or a gang of street thugs? If not that, what do you think McDonald's motivation was for serving hot coffee?

 

I think McDonald's was serving hot coffee because most of their customers wanted hot coffee. I know that since that judgement, I have been disappointed at times when I have bought coffee at McDonald's that was not hot enough to suit me.

 

How doesn't it make sense? It makes perfect sense to me.

 

I neither know nor care what McD's motivations were, and do not see that they have the slightest relevance. They knew, 700 times over, that the product was dangerous. Third degree burns are no laughing matter. They didn't fix their product.

 

I honestly doubt you want your coffee too hot to drink, such that any attempt to drink it would cause a severe burn needing medical treatment, and possibly hospitalization.

 

 

[MotorinLA]

I neither know nor care what McD's motivations were, and do not see that they have the slightest relevance. They knew, 700 times over, that the product was dangerous. Third degree burns are no laughing matter. They didn't fix their product.

 

 

What does the sign outside McDonalds say? Billions and billions served? I agree that third degree burns are no joke, but if McDonalds have sold, say 10 million cups of coffee, the 700 cases amount to 0.07 percent of coffee purchased. I think that could be explained by the personal idiot factor of the consumers, rather than blaming McDonalds for selling coffee that is too hot.

 

How many people have died, or sustained severe injury, because they were involved in a traffic collison, where the driver at fault was distracted by food or drink sold at a drive-thru? Should we sue the fast food industry at large on the behalf of these people? Close down all drive-thrus? When will we stop making lack personal of responsibility the burden of some selected deep-pocketed scape-goat?

 

Excuses are like @$$holes, everybody's got one and they all stink! :frown:

[Twisties]

I neither know nor care what McD's motivations were, and do not see that they have the slightest relevance. They knew, 700 times over, that the product was dangerous. Third degree burns are no laughing matter. They didn't fix their product.

 

 

What does the sign outside McDonalds say? Billions and billions served? I agree that third degree burns are no joke, but if McDonalds have sold, say 10 million cups of coffee, the 700 cases amount to 0.07 percent of coffee purchased. I think that could be explained by the personal idiot factor of the consumers, rather than blaming McDonalds for selling coffee that is too hot.

 

How many people have died, or sustained severe injury, because they were involved in a traffic collison, where the driver at fault was distracted by food or drink sold at a drive-thru? Should we sue the fast food industry at large on the behalf of these people? Close down all drive-thrus? When will we stop making lack personal of responsibility the burden of some selected deep-pocketed scape-goat?

 

Excuses are like @$$holes, everybody's got one and they all stink! :frown:

 

I think that could be explained by the personal idiot factor of the consumers, rather than blaming McDonalds for selling coffee that is too hot.

 

A jury of your peers, that actually heard the details, saw the evidence, and listened to both sides of the matter concluded that in fact it was McDs callous disregard for safety that was 80% at fault.

 

When will we stop making lack personal of responsibility the burden of some selected deep-pocketed scape-goat?

 

When we will we stop making lack of corporate responsibility the burden of the little guy? In any event, again, the jury disagreed with that point of view, they found McD's product to be worth 80% of the cause. Does that mean nothing to you?

 

Excuses are like @$$holes, everybody's got one and they all stink! :frown:

 

The only one making excuses here is McD's and their excuse, that the consumer was an idiot didn't fly.

[Twisties]

They also claimed that it was the same temperature that styrofoam cups melt - does the absurdity of that claim strike anyone? Styrofoam cups actually melt at a temp in excess of 250 degrees.

 

Actually, styrofoam's glass transition point is about 203 F. At this temperature it can be molded. It reaches it's Vicat B softening point at about 194 F. So while it is true that it doesn't melt until a much higher temperature, the absurdity of basing a conclusion about the cup's integrity solely on melting struck me.

 

When you have some info on what the actual cup used was, and it's actual integrity under the circumstances of use, then perhaps we can speak without absurdities about the matter.

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

Jan, some people like their coffee hot enough to melt flesh, and McDonalds was just catering to their wishes. I suppose you think that McDonalds has some duty to ensure that their food products are actually fit for human consumption as served. Everybody knows that coffee is "hot", and "hot" can be anything from 90F to the temperature of the surface of the Sun, so she certainly should have been on notice that the "hot" coffee could potentially char her flesh like a prime steak. If she failed to take the simple precaution of using a thermometer to ensure that the "hot" coffee was at human-consumption temperatures and not at volcanic-lava temperatures, she was the one who was negligent.

 

You know, safety costs money. I suppose you would have wanted to force all those Ford Pinto buyers to fork over that extra $11 for a safe fuel tank, too. Hardly any of them were immolated in fiery collisions, and why take away their freedom of choice to do so? And if they can't manage to drive around without getting themselves hit in the a**, it's just evolution in action.

[Marty Hill]

Finally, a counter point! EB, remember that he is just trying to save the world.

[tallman]

All I know 'bout this is, I don't drink coffee,

and if I did, I wouldn't buy it at MikitaD's.

 

If only I knew someone who could explain the language of Starbukistan to me, perhaps I'd see the light and drink the ground bean.

Or not...

 

Since there is no standard for what constitutes "hot" I suggest we ban all of them.

Hot coffee, hot chocolate, Hot Wheels, hot pants, and expressions like Hot to Trot.

[Ken H.]

We (the USA) have a system of justice that is based on a decision of a jury of our peers, a system that we (purport to) have faith in and uphold as just. In this case, and 1000s of others each day, a verdict by that system was rendered. What bothers me the most about these types of threads is the evidence they give to breakdown of faith in that system. Apparently no one anymore accepts the system as valid. Many feel quite content, righteous even, to ‘Monday morning quarterback’ the very system we hypocritically claim to champion.

 

I submit that unless someone on BMWST was also on that jury, or has read the entire transcript and examined all the evidence – you don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

Is the problem the temperature of McDonalds’ coffee, or that of the populous?

 

(Going back to my corner now...)

[Dave McReynolds]

When people who are generally outspoken, who aren't generally shy about expressing their often contrarian opinions about life or society, take the position that questioning a jury decision is evidence of a breakdown of faith in the system, or that since there was a jury decision it must be right and we shouldn't question it, I have to wonder if they are being disingenuous.

 

Questioning previous law and court decisions led to Brown vs. the Board of Education, Roe vs. Wade, and a whole host of other decisions from eminent domain to gun control to freedom of speech. Many of these decisions are being questioned again, and will no doubt lead to new law in the future.

 

Without questioning the personal integrity of anyone on the jury, and accepting that they may well have come to the correct decision under the law, it is possible to conclude that the law on which their decision was based does not reflect the rules under which we would like our society to function, and therefore should be changed.

 

Isn't that how our system is supposed to work, or am I missing something?

[Quinn]

If there is that much faith in the jury system, then why do judges get to set aside their decisions and often decrease the amounts awarded?

 

 

----

 

 

[Ken H.]

I have to wonder if they are being disingenuous.

Replies as such, i.e. personal attacks; is of course why I'm pretty much out of here.

 

I thought the posts were an interesting enough of observation of how people view the system these days, i.e. skeptically, at best; that I thought I'd pop back in.

 

Guess I was wrong.

 

Bye.

 

[Matts_12GS]

I have to wonder if they are being disingenuous.

Replies as such, i.e. personal attacks; is of course why I'm pretty much out of here.

 

I thought the posts were an interesting enough of observation of how people view the system these days, i.e. skeptically, at best; that I thought I'd pop back in.

 

Guess I was wrong.

 

Bye.

 

 

LOL.....

[MotorinLA]

I think that could be explained by the personal idiot factor of the consumers, rather than blaming McDonalds for selling coffee that is too hot.

 

A jury of your peers, that actually heard the details, saw the evidence, and listened to both sides of the matter concluded that in fact it was McDs callous disregard for safety that was 80% at fault.

 

Or was it simply McD's lack of empathy for the "victim" that led to the judgement?

 

 

 

When will we stop making lack personal of responsibility the burden of some selected deep-pocketed scape-goat?

 

When we will we stop making lack of corporate responsibility the burden of the little guy? In any event, again, the jury disagreed with that point of view, they found McD's product to be worth 80% of the cause. Does that mean nothing to you?

 

I have seen many a "victim" in a civil case come to court with their neck brace still on two to three years after the event that led to their injury. I have been painted as the "incompetent cop" by attorneys who will go to any length to make the police be the bad guy and their client the victim. These are the same attorneys that start every question with "So what you are saying is..." followed by some twisted version of the statement that you just gave. When you reply, you appear argumentative, because you always disagree with the defendant's attorney. The court games go on and on. A good attorney can multiply the pity factor to a point where it becomes more important than the actual facts of the trial. So no, the finding of the jury in personal-injury civil cases doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot to me. If the defendant had won more often, personal-injury law would not have become the giant monster it is today.

 

BTW, how much of that settlement did the plaintiff actually receive? Attorney fees generally eat up more than the majority of the settlement in these cases. So, the little-guy gets screwed over again. The only real winners are the attorneys. They are uninjured, but they get the most money.

 

[DiggerJim]

These are the same attorneys that start every question with "So what you are saying is..." followed by some twisted version of the statement that you just gave. When you reply, you appear argumentative, because you always disagree with the defendant's attorney. The court games go on and on.

I was on the jury in a murder trial (multiple capital felony murder in fact) and the defendant's attorney was so irritating with that kind of crap (Officer: "this is a photo of 20 of the bullet casings we found at the scene"...Lawyer: "alleged bullet casings!"...yeah, right, the cop couldn't tell the difference between a real bullet casing & a fake one...sheesh)...or my favorite, Coroner: "I've done over 1000 autopsies while working in Chicago and this was the most horrific, the bullets fragmented inside the body into hundreds of pieces shredding the tissues"...Lawyer: "Ah, ha, so you couldn't tell which of the fragments killed the victim and in fact it could have been the first one so he likely never felt anything is that correct?"...Coroner: "No sir, he had blood on the soles of his feet indicating he ran through his own blood").

 

A couple of weeks of this & we were ready to send the defendant to the chair (CT used to use the electric chair until someone figured out they didn't bring enough power in when they built the new maximum security prison housing death row) just because his lawyer was irritating the snot out of us and we felt he was insulting our intelligence.

 

Fortunately for the defendant he "remembered" he might have done it, copped a plea and got a 3-judge panel to sentence him to life no parole.

 

Sometimes lawyers shoot themselves (or their clients I guess) in the foot with their shenanigans.