On a bag of airline peanuts:
"may contain trace amounts of peanuts or nuts"

OK!
That gave me my laugh for the day.

THANKS!

Actually, there's a lot more to this lawsuit than what is popularly believed. McDonald's was guilty as sin -- and here's why.
******************************************************
(Reprinted from the Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers)

McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit

Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.

The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.

Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.

According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.

*****************************************************

Written by the not exactly unbiased trial lawyers of Ohio

Like I said, coffee in you home is HOTTER - I can PROVE my point. All _I_ need is a thermometer

Yes, she was burned - burned BADLY. It doesn't mean the coffee was hotter than normal. Hotter than other fast food places - maybe. Sure as heck not hotter than I serve at home

And I forgot a few other little points. 700 people burned? Sounds like a lot, huh? Now figure that they have surved, oh, 15-20 BILLION cups of coffee - you have a .0000046% chance of being burned - or less than a 1 in 21 million chance

Lets face it, she did something dumb, with a beverage KNOWN to be hot - she put it between her legs!

Sorry, bud, I stand by my original post.

700 people is a huge number of people to make claims against a company for any one product.

IMHO, the temperature of your home brew is immaterial. The vast majority of other food establishments sold coffee that was 20 degrees cooler than Mickey D's. They were advised to cool it down & they declined. In the end, it was their arrogance that nailed them. The lady ended up getting a much smaller amount anyway, not the millions that everyone thinks.

The whole thing reminds me of the Pinto and the Corvair fiascos.

I'll wager that at home, you're not serving it in a styrofoam cup to someone in a relatively cramped enclosure, with restricted movement. In other words, if you spill it in your lap, you can jump to your feet and pull the material away from your skin; if necessary, you can whip your pants down around your ankles. This is not possible for someone sitting in a car.

Whether the trial lawyers are biased or not is irrelevant. Is the account accurate? If you feel the facts, as stated in the article mamabear quoted, are incorrect, then please state which facts are wrong. If the facts are right, then they're right, and it's irrelevant who points them out.

I can speak somewhat from personal experience. Last summer, I was visiting my brother and made a pot of tea to take out to the patio. I didn't know that the handle on the ceramic teapot had broken some years before, and my brother had fixed it with superglue. This had never caused a problem, as he had never filled it more than half full; this time, however, I made a full pot, with the result that the handle separated, the pot smashed, and splashed boiling hot tea over my right foot. (I was wearing socks but no shoes.)

I immediately stripped off the sock, ran inside, and began running cold water over my foot. Even so, I sustained a rather painful first degree burn. Had this happened when I was seated inside a car, even one that was parked (as was the case in the McDonald's lawsuit), I might well have sustained second- or even third-degree burns.

You may feel that it's acceptable for a business to simply accept that a certain percentage of its customers will be injured, hospitalized, or even killed by one of its products, in order to increase its profits. mamabear and I simply pointed out the facts of the case; it's up to each of us individually to decide if McDonald's had a right to endanger its customers, even to a minimal extent, in order to make money.

The ONLY fact I dispute in the account is "excessively hot" - All the rest is details. I've granted that she was badly injured, and that she had the right to sue. I do know, that given all the other facts, if _I_ was on the jury, I would NOT have voted for an award - the 180 deg heat is NOT enough to convince me. Sorry. All the rest is details

Reply transferred to "Around The Campfire".

In the real world - where natural consequences rule - individual responsability for their own actions is all that matters. Do what you will to educate, inform, cajole, protect people. When someone dumps hot coffee on their groin, walks away from the road in the outback, goes out in the winter without a coat etc. The natural consequences follow. The individual with the coffee in their lap will be burned. No amount of lawyering will change that and no amount of corporate liability evasion or responsibility will prevent it. If you do it at home, with the thermos you filled from your home while drinking it in your car, or with the boiling water on your alcohol stove whilst backpacking. The natural consequence of pouring boiling water on your groin will be burns. Coffee is made with boiling water - such is life. BTW, if you are the first customer in line at Duncan Donuts after a fresh pot brews that coffee will be just as hot as McD's. It is only after it sits on the burner for a while going stale that there develops a difference. Coffee made in both establishments is made with boiling 212 degree F water. If you walk away from your car in a desert and carry no water the natural consequence will be dehydration and death. No amount of lawyering after the fact will change that and no amount of "corporate responsibility" will prevent that. Short of removing the liberty to enter the hazardous environment there is no way for society to prevent such events. Only the individual personally involved has that ability.

About the Bloke in the outback, Who failed to educate him? The travel agency? The Aussie Govt? The car rental agency? His parents? His high-school teacher? His kindergarden teacher? What was he supposed to have been taught? Assess your situation before making major decisions? Dont leave the water behind? Hot dry places are hot and dry? If you drive 1/2 hour out you will have to walk 2 days back? Which of these lessons was the lesson that he didn't get taught and whose responsibility was it to teach him?

He was the bloke on the scene. His were the natural (unavoidable) consequences. His was the ultimate "effecitve" responsability. All the rest is lawyering and BS IMNSHO

These things become somewhat clearer when we look at true cases of insanity such as a fellow who believes that he can fly jumping off a building - not to commit suicide but truely convinced that he can fly. People correctly conclude that the man was mad and that tho sad the event lies with him.