really? Again with the hot coffee?

http://www.newser.com/story/176886/woman-sues-mcdonalds-for-millions-over-hot-coffee.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_top

(NEWSER) – A California woman is suing McDonald's for more than $2M over a hot coffee spill—and no, you aren't living in a 1990s time warp. Joan Fino, 74, says that coffee she ordered from a McDonald's drive-through spilled on her lap, inflicting second-degree burns to her groin area. Though the incident occurred in August 2012, Fino says "it still hurts," reports the Fresno Bee. "I have trouble sleeping because the burning sensation doesn't go away."

And just like her famous predecessor (79-year-old Stella Liebeck, who also ordered at a drive-through), she's arguing that McDonald's intentionally overheats its coffee because the "scalding" temps keep it fresher longer, allowing the company to save money, KTRK reports. Fino's lawyer thinks her case is even stronger than Liebeck's because a McDonald's worker handed Fino her coffee; Liebeck was in the passenger seat when she was burned. McDonald's coffee lovers will soon be able to heat the brew to the temp of their choosing: The company this week announced that it would begin selling its coffee in grocery stores.

^You should do some actual research vs reading headlines in regards to the original case.

z31maniac wrote: ^You should do some actual research vs reading headlines in regards to the original case.

I read the orig case; both still ridiculous.

She is an old bag with thin skin and lost muscle... She'll get a 2nd degree burn looking at a pot of COLD coffee.

z31maniac wrote: ^You should do some actual research vs reading headlines in regards to the original case.

Agreed, I looked it up in the early days of the web. My recollection is that the coffee was like 205F, basically at boiling point which is dumb for serving a drink, especially coffee which is burnt by that point. After she was burnt she approached McDonalds for help with medical costs as she had serious burns. They denied and she sues just for medical costs. In the case the McDonalds reps were asked if they had other complaints or issues. They basically replied with 'a very few'. When the judge asked them to elaborate they had hundreds and hundreds with many other serious burns over a period of time and had done nothing about it. The massive famous penalty was a berkeley you from the judge for lying and ignoring a problem and was reduced on appeal. But making fun of the original claimant is not fair.

Note, I looked this up like 15 years ago so I could be off on some details.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ^You should do some actual research vs reading headlines in regards to the original case.

Agreed, I looked it up in the early days of the web. My recollection is that the coffee was like 205F, basically at boiling point which is dumb for serving a drink, especially coffee which is burnt by that point. After she was burnt she approached McDonalds for help with medical costs as she had serious burns. They denied and she sues just for medical costs. In the case the McDonalds reps were asked if they had other complaints or issues. They basically replied with 'a very few'. When the judge asked them to elaborate they had hundreds and hundreds with many other serious burns over a period of time and had done nothing about it. The massive famous penalty was a berkeley you from the judge for lying and ignoring a problem and was reduced on appeal. But making fun of the original claimant is not fair. Note, I looked this up like 15 years ago so I could be off on some details.

More than a "berkeley you", it was a warning to McDonalds and other places with coffee: Don't be stupid, and don't serve people boiling fluid. For McD's, it was a drop in the bucket and a lesson [that should have been?] learned.

tuna55 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ^You should do some actual research vs reading headlines in regards to the original case.

I read the orig case; both still ridiculous.

This. McDonald's had been sued over hot coffee before and decided to take a stand rather than just rolling over and paying up as they always had.

Just one of several Starbuck's lawsuits: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/oct/25/starbucks-faces-burn-suit/

Then there's Chick-Fil-A: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/how-hot-is-too-hot-for-your-morning-cup-of-joe%3F-we-put-your-favorites-to-the-test.

Dunkin' Donuts has been sued too, can't find a current link.

It's all about the money. Running short of cash? Buy a cup of joe, spill it on yourself and watch the bucks roll in.

^Are you willing to pour boiling water on your hootus for a million bucks?

I'm not. And I seriously doubt that is the motivation for people.

WTF are restaurants supposed to do? Serve their berking coffee cold so it won't hurt anyone?

Coffee doesn't burn people. Stupid people burn themselves.

I was cooking bacon when I was naked a while back and the grease burned my stomach. Who do I sue? The landlord? Gas Co? A pig?

Victim mentality.

"The coffee spilled", the "car lost control". People need to take responsibility for their actions, and not turn berkeley-ups into windfalls.

z31maniac wrote: ^Are you willing to pour boiling water on your hootus for a million bucks? I'm not. And I seriously doubt that is the motivation for people.

A million dollars? Uh, yeah, I sure would.

z31maniac wrote: ^Are you willing to pour boiling water on your hootus for a million bucks? I'm not. And I seriously doubt that is the motivation for people.

It most definitely is in some cases.

I can't find a link, but not terribly long ago there was a guy who hit himself in the face with a hammer, cracking the skull and knocking out some teeth, all so he could file a worker's comp lawsuit. I'll keep looking.

Wasn't that long ago an insurance fraud ring was broken up, it worked this way: pull out in front of someone and slam on the brakes, get hit from behind, file lawsuit.

Curmudgeon wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ^Are you willing to pour boiling water on your hootus for a million bucks? I'm not. And I seriously doubt that is the motivation for people.

It most definitely is in some cases.

It definitely is. Somehow I don't think it is in the case of a septugenarian (talking about the first case, not the second)

Curmudgeon wrote:

z31maniac wrote: ^Are you willing to pour boiling water on your hootus for a million bucks? I'm not. And I seriously doubt that is the motivation for people.

It most definitely is in some cases. I can't find a link, but not terribly long ago there was a guy who hit himself in the face with a hammer, cracking the skull and knocking out some teeth, all so he could file a worker's comp lawsuit. I'll keep looking. Wasn't that long ago an insurance fraud ring was broken up, it worked this way: pull out in front of someone and slam on the brakes, get hit from behind, file lawsuit.

Of course.........but I'll stick with my assumption that it's an INCREDIBLY small percentage of people who are willfully injuring themselves for the sake of pursuing a lawsuit.

Several years ago a couple friends and I were talking about the original case and some other similar cases we heard. We all agreed that we'd be too embarased to admit that we were dumb enough to spill hot coffee on us. Isn't coffee supposed to be hot. Boiling hot or just hot not considered. Some coffee affienandos say coffee is best brewed at just under boiling, some say a little cooler. And the last time I checked, the majority of cars being sold in the US have cup holders. Why aren't they using them?

noddaz wrote: (NEWSER) – A California woman is suing McDonald's for .. .. . . "I have trouble sleeping because the burning sensation doesn't go away."

Am I the only one that thinks she should go see a doctor and get her boyfriend checked out as well?

dean1484 wrote:

noddaz wrote: (NEWSER) – A California woman is suing McDonald's for .. .. . . "I have trouble sleeping because the burning sensation doesn't go away."

Am I the only one that thinks she should go see a doctor and get her boyfriend checked out as well?

I'm taking the fifth!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Anyone remember the "slip and fall" victims from a few years back? Almost as big a reason for security cameras at grocery stores as theft.

They left the "Eh?" off that cup, Keith.

The current case looks to have more to it than the last case. The article linked to above is a bit thin. This has some more: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=9308554

It says that the MickyD's employee spilled the coffee on the woman, which makes it a bit more than "the coffee was hot." I think it's reasonable to expect to not have coffee spilled on you by the employee of the restaurant. Guess we'll see where that goes.

Dr. Hess wrote: ...The current case looks to have more to it than the last case.....

Come on now, lets not let "facts" get in the way of a perfectly good story!

Is $2M the NADA value on a 74 hootus?

In reply to Spoolpigeon:

In your case that'd be -$9.36...