Crown

apias:

 

All it is proof of is that McDonald's has made a calculated business decision that they will make more money selling dangerously hot coffee and injuring some number of people a year than if they sell it at a safe, and more appropriate temperature. The only failure of the tort system here is that it is failing to dissuade them from knowingly causing injuries to people, because damage awards have not been high enough to exceed their calculated profits that result.

The SCAA are idiots. Coffee held for any length of time after brewing above 165°F suffers serious and rapid flavor degradation.

Dude, if you brew your own coffee at home, then you spilled it and hurt yourself, who do you sue? Yourself? The coffee maker's company? Or the company that makes the glass? Or your wife cause she didn't warn you about the hot coffee?

Common sense man, common sense. Which these stupid lawsuits has zero. A normal sane judge anywhere in the world would have thrown out these hot coffee lawsuits before even reach his desk, then would give a lecture to the lawyers involved about ethnics. 

Part of the problem there is a tendency to overestimate the intelligence of people. MOST PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOUR ONE OF THEM.

Of little, to make much: That is the dream of a human life.

I completely disagree, and, as I stated above, I believe McDonald's ought to be held liable for any injuries sustained from serving excessively hot coffee.

apias:

I completely disagree, and, as I stated above, I believe McDonald's ought to be held liable for any injuries sustained from serving excessively hot coffee.

Well in that case, using your logic, who would be liable in my example?

Your example isn't analogous at all, and too vague to be meaningful.

There wasn't anything vague about the case being discussed. But, I guess that's why we have trials to determine the facts and if someone was liable for injuries caused. I don't really know why anyone would think arbitrarily cutting off or limiting the ability to seek redress for wrongs would be a good thing, especially when the rationale for doing so is based on phony statistics.

nberry:

Part of the problem there is a tendency to overestimate the intelligence of people. MOST PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOUR ONE OF THEM.

+1 

Indeed.

2015 981 Cayman GT4 | White | Full Bucket Seats | Sport Chrono
2014 991 Carrera 4S | Dark Blue Metallic | PDK | Sport Chrono | SPASM

Coffee should be kept warm at around 65°C (149°F), not more. Actually, it should be even served at this temperature but I think that for most people, it would be still too hot. Otherwise, when it is too hot, the flavor degrades indeed. 

Optimal brewing temperature is around 85°C and 92°C (185°F to 197°F).

Most coffee/espresso machines are actually set up in a way that they respect these temperatures. In no way would I keep the coffee warm at temperatures over 65°C or even 80°C. The flavor will be gone soon.

I am actually one of the rare people who drink the Espresso with...milk or better said, in milk. I love it, usually I make it a double in half a can of milk. I never drink regular coffee, it isn't strong enough for me. In summer time, I usually pour the hot Espresso in ice cold milk but I need to drink it fast, otherwise the taste degrades almost instantly.

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)

apias:

JoeRockhead:

I'm sure they turn over their coffee quickly enough that the flavour doesn't degrade. ...

When was the last time you tried McDonald's coffee?

Well you've got me there. It's been a long time. But if your point is that the flavour is degraded regardless of when they serve it, you might be right. 

Those layers are c*cksuckers no matter how you spin it. There is zero decency in trying to squeeze cash out of this. NO one will benefit, society will not be better off. Maybe Porsche should stop selling in the US. 

1991 BMW 535i Granitsilber/White Leather

Ex: '91 BMW 318i, '89 BMW 525i, '74 Mercedes-Benz 280E, '87 BMW 325is, '86 BMW 325e, '05 Ford Focus ZX4 S, '85.5 Porsche 944

Atzporsche:

Those layers are c*cksuckers no matter how you spin it. There is zero decency in trying to squeeze cash out of this. NO one will benefit, society will not be better off. Maybe Porsche should stop selling in the US. 

There we go.. back to the roots and at least someone else appreciates my talking 

Atzporsche:

Those layers are c*cksuckers no matter how you spin it. There is zero decency in trying to squeeze cash out of this. NO one will benefit, society will not be better off. Maybe Porsche should stop selling in the US. 

Lawyers have a job and they try to squeeze out the best deal for their clients. I do not see any problem with that and no, I'm not a lawyer. If you want to blame something, blame the legal system.

RC (Germany) - Rennteam Editor Porsche 991 Carrera 4 GTS Cabriolet, Porsche Macan Turbo, Ford Mustang GT500 Shelby SVT (2014), Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT (2014)

Whoopsy:

apias:

 

All it is proof of is that McDonald's has made a calculated business decision that they will make more money selling dangerously hot coffee and injuring some number of people a year than if they sell it at a safe, and more appropriate temperature. The only failure of the tort system here is that it is failing to dissuade them from knowingly causing injuries to people, because damage awards have not been high enough to exceed their calculated profits that result.

The SCAA are idiots. Coffee held for any length of time after brewing above 165°F suffers serious and rapid flavor degradation.

 

Dude, if you brew your own coffee at home, then you spilled it and hurt yourself, who do you sue? Yourself? The coffee maker's company? Or the company that makes the glass? Or your wife cause she didn't warn you about the hot coffee?

Common sense man, common sense. Which these stupid lawsuits has zero. A normal sane judge anywhere in the world would have thrown out these hot coffee lawsuits before even reach his desk, then would give a lecture to the lawyers involved about ethnics. 

x2 comon sense, the least comon of all the senses... 

Its all about abusing the spirit in which the law was written in order to get money (including the layers) you don't deserve, nothing more, nothing less. Legal? yes, inmoral and unethical? twice yes.

⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS

Carlos from Spain:

Whoopsy:

apias:

 

All it is proof of is that McDonald's has made a calculated business decision that they will make more money selling dangerously hot coffee and injuring some number of people a year than if they sell it at a safe, and more appropriate temperature. The only failure of the tort system here is that it is failing to dissuade them from knowingly causing injuries to people, because damage awards have not been high enough to exceed their calculated profits that result.

The SCAA are idiots. Coffee held for any length of time after brewing above 165°F suffers serious and rapid flavor degradation.

Dude, if you brew your own coffee at home, then you spilled it and hurt yourself, who do you sue? Yourself? The coffee maker's company? Or the company that makes the glass? Or your wife cause she didn't warn you about the hot coffee?

Common sense man, common sense. Which these stupid lawsuits has zero. A normal sane judge anywhere in the world would have thrown out these hot coffee lawsuits before even reach his desk, then would give a lecture to the lawyers involved about ethnics. 

x2 comon sense, the least comon of all the senses... 

Its all about abusing the spirit in which the law was written in order to get money (including the layers) you don't deserve, nothing more, nothing less. Legal? yes, inmoral and unethical? twice yes.

+1

2015 981 Cayman GT4 | White | Full Bucket Seats | Sport Chrono
2014 991 Carrera 4S | Dark Blue Metallic | PDK | Sport Chrono | SPASM

Carlos from Spain:

 

Its all about abusing the spirit in which the law was written in order to get money (including the layers) you don't deserve, nothing more, nothing less. Legal? yes, inmoral and unethical? twice yes.

No one is abusing the law in the case of McDonald's coffee. They knowingly packaged and sold a dangerous product that caused extremely serious injuries -- i.e., 3rd degree burns. It caused injuries to at least 700 (probably more) people prior to the incident mentioned. They admitted that, if you drank it at the temperature served, it would burn your mouth and throat. They wittingly continued this practice despite knowing it was dangerous. The spirit of the law is that if you knowingly act in such a way as may likely cause harm to other people you are liable for damages if you do in fact cause harm.

The only party behaving immorally and unethically in this case was McDonald's, who intentionally put consumers at risk of severe injury simply by using McDonald's product as it was expected and known to be used and then refused to cover the medical expenses of a person they caused injury to, an injury that could have been predicted by McDonald's and avoided altogether if they had simply packaged and sold it in a safer manner.

apias:

Carlos from Spain:

 

Its all about abusing the spirit in which the law was written in order to get money (including the layers) you don't deserve, nothing more, nothing less. Legal? yes, inmoral and unethical? twice yes.

No one is abusing the law in the case of McDonald's coffee. They knowingly packaged and sold a dangerous product that caused extremely serious injuries

I did not follow this from the start, why did McDonald's sell coffee at this high temperature? What were their reason?

2015 981 Cayman GT4 | White | Full Bucket Seats | Sport Chrono
2014 991 Carrera 4S | Dark Blue Metallic | PDK | Sport Chrono | SPASM

Found this interesting. There is a law that protects firearms manufacturers from being sued when their products are used in the commission of crime, but not if their products are found to be defective and such.

"In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

JoeRockhead:

Found this interesting. There is a law that protects firearms manufacturers from being sued when their products are used in the commission of crime, but not if their products are found to be defective and such.

"In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

That is comforting. So at least the criminal can sue the firearm manufacturer if the product fails to harm the victim due to a defect.

2015 981 Cayman GT4 | White | Full Bucket Seats | Sport Chrono
2014 991 Carrera 4S | Dark Blue Metallic | PDK | Sport Chrono | SPASM

JoeRockhead:

Found this interesting. There is a law that protects firearms manufacturers from being sued when their products are used in the commission of crime, but not if their products are found to be defective and such.

"In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Isn't it wonderful what a good industry lobby can achieve.   

fritz

bluelines:

apias:

Carlos from Spain:

 

Its all about abusing the spirit in which the law was written in order to get money (including the layers) you don't deserve, nothing more, nothing less. Legal? yes, inmoral and unethical? twice yes.

No one is abusing the law in the case of McDonald's coffee. They knowingly packaged and sold a dangerous product that caused extremely serious injuries

I did not follow this from the start, why did McDonald's sell coffee at this high temperature? What were their reason?

They claimed they weren't selling it to be drunk in cars (despite the fact that it was sold at drive through windows) and that it was dangerously hot (190°F) so it wouldn't be too cold when people arrived at the detention where they intended to drink it. But, they also served it inside their "restaurants" at the same dangerous temperature, and they knew people were intending to drink it in moving vehicles.

Essentially, they chose to cater to some segment of their clientele by selling dangerously hot coffee without concern of the danger it posed to others.

All hot liquids are 'dangerous'. Does it make a difference between 80 degree or 85 degree hot coffee? They will both burn, the difference might be a fraction of a seconds. 

Spilling coffee is the users' error, not the provider. 

fritz:

JoeRockhead:

Found this interesting. There is a law that protects firearms manufacturers from being sued when their products are used in the commission of crime, but not if their products are found to be defective and such.

"In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Isn't it wonderful what a good industry lobby can achieve.   

Yes, but if someone kills someone while drinking and driving, or intentionally runs someone over with their car, should the manufacturer not be protected from a lawsuit filed by the victim? Anyway, the US gun lobby is extremely powerful, that's for sure.

JoeRockhead:

fritz:

JoeRockhead:

Found this interesting. There is a law that protects firearms manufacturers from being sued when their products are used in the commission of crime, but not if their products are found to be defective and such.

"In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Isn't it wonderful what a good industry lobby can achieve.   

Yes, but if someone kills someone while drinking and driving, or intentionally runs someone over with their car, should the manufacturer not be protected from a lawsuit filed by the victim? Anyway, the US gun lobby is extremely powerful, that's for sure.

That someone can file a lawsuit against the manufacturer is already absurd. Or? What responsibility can a manufacturer of a product possibly have if it is (mis)used to harm someone?

(It is of course extra absurd since a firearm is designed to harm, while a car is designed for transportation. Anyway the US firearm situation is so f'ked up...)

2015 981 Cayman GT4 | White | Full Bucket Seats | Sport Chrono
2014 991 Carrera 4S | Dark Blue Metallic | PDK | Sport Chrono | SPASM

I guess that what it boils down to is that product liability cases frequently get a serious hearing in US courts where most people would think that running the claims through a "common-sense filter" up front should get them thrown out before they ever get to be a full-blown court procedure. 
Whereas in many legal jurisdictions the claimants lawyers would for their own protection advise them against starting expensive proceedings on the basis of a very poor case, there appear to be lawyers in the USA who positively encourage clients to proceed under those circumstances.    

fritz

Whoopsy:

All hot liquids are 'dangerous'. Does it make a difference between 80 degree or 85 degree hot coffee? They will both burn, the difference might be a fraction of a seconds. 

Spilling coffee is the users' error, not the provider. 

There are any number of actions McDonalds could have taken to mitigate the burn risk from their coffee, including, but not limited to,

• Lowering the temperature to a safe level.
• Redesigning the cup or cup lid to make it safer to drink from and/or add cream and sugar to the coffee.
• Adding cream and/or sugar for customers to allow them to avoid the risk of opening cups in vehicles.
• Adequately warning customers of the dangers, particularly the at the drive through window.
• Offering coffee at two different temperatures -- one safe to drink immediately, one for later consumption after cooling.

They didn't do any of these things, yet continued to sell dangerously hot coffee in dangerous containers from drive through windows that they knew customers intended to consume immediately, even though it was too hot to do so, and hotter than most coffee is served.

Not only did they create a dangerous product, but the failed to warn customers it was dangerous or take any steps to mitigate the risk.

apias:

Whoopsy:

All hot liquids are 'dangerous'. Does it make a difference between 80 degree or 85 degree hot coffee? They will both burn, the difference might be a fraction of a seconds. 

Spilling coffee is the users' error, not the provider. 

There are any number of actions McDonalds could have taken to mitigate the burn risk from their coffee, including, but not limited to,

• Lowering the temperature to a safe level.
• Redesigning the cup or cup lid to make it safer to drink from and/or add cream and sugar to the coffee.
• Adding cream and/or sugar for customers to allow them to avoid the risk of opening cups in vehicles.
• Adequately warning customers of the dangers, particularly the at the drive through window.
• Offering coffee at two different temperatures -- one safe to drink immediately, one for later consumption after cooling.

They didn't do any of these things, yet continued to sell dangerously hot coffee in dangerous containers from drive through windows that they knew customers intended to consume immediately, even though it was too hot to do so, and hotter than most coffee is served.

Not only did they create a dangerous product, but the failed to warn customers it was dangerous or take any steps to mitigate the risk.

Seriously?

What additional precautions would you expect of gas station operators, purveyors of chain saws, garden supplies stores selling roses with those brutal thorns.  

fritz

Please stop this mockery, we are talking dangerous thorns on dangerous roses! Innocent people bleeding to death!

2015 981 Cayman GT4 | White | Full Bucket Seats | Sport Chrono
2014 991 Carrera 4S | Dark Blue Metallic | PDK | Sport Chrono | SPASM

fritz:

apias:

Whoopsy:

All hot liquids are 'dangerous'. Does it make a difference between 80 degree or 85 degree hot coffee? They will both burn, the difference might be a fraction of a seconds. 

Spilling coffee is the users' error, not the provider. 

There are any number of actions McDonalds could have taken to mitigate the burn risk from their coffee, including, but not limited to,

• Lowering the temperature to a safe level.
• Redesigning the cup or cup lid to make it safer to drink from and/or add cream and sugar to the coffee.
• Adding cream and/or sugar for customers to allow them to avoid the risk of opening cups in vehicles.
• Adequately warning customers of the dangers, particularly the at the drive through window.
• Offering coffee at two different temperatures -- one safe to drink immediately, one for later consumption after cooling.

They didn't do any of these things, yet continued to sell dangerously hot coffee in dangerous containers from drive through windows that they knew customers intended to consume immediately, even though it was too hot to do so, and hotter than most coffee is served.

Not only did they create a dangerous product, but the failed to warn customers it was dangerous or take any steps to mitigate the risk.

Seriously?

What additional precautions would you expect of gas station operators, purveyors of chain saws, garden supplies stores selling roses with those brutal thorns.  

More stickers like the beautiful one I have on my sunvisor in the GTS that cannot be removed, it has been printed on so you can't. 

I can see it now, big sticker in the cup: "Careful, this hot coffee is... hot, and hot things give boo-boo to skin. Manipulate safely while driving a vehicle or we will have to pay you a lot of money"

So if a person buys a kitchen knife and cuts himself because its very sharp, he sues the manufacturer because its was "too sharp"? 

--

⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS

Carlos from Spain:

I can see it now, big sticker in the cup: "Careful, this hot coffee is... hot, and hot things burn. Manipulate safely or we will have to pay you a lot of money"

So if a person buys a kitchen knife and cuts himself because its very sharp, he sues the manufacturer because its was "too sharp"? 

Kitchen knives are expected to be sharp; in fact, they are more dangerous when dull.

Coffee is not expected to be so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns in an instant. So, yes, at the least a warning to the customer indicating the burn risk from McDonald's exceptionally hot coffee -- i.e., that this particular coffee at this excessively hot temperature should not be consumed or opened in a moving vehicle until it cools. Remember, even attempting to drink this coffee, as served, carries a risk of serious internal burns. Is that also "user error"?

how many cars could have taken that same curve at the same speed and not crashed? even with similar age tires? Porsche lost several wrongful death lawsuits about the 930 back in the day and the cgt, for all that we might like it does have a reputation for tricky handling. So let this girls lawsuit get its hearing in court. porsche will move to have it dismissed due to the age of the car, its out of spec tires, reckless driving, out of  warrranty, commercial warranty law, and the drivers negligence. If the judge agrees its over. if not Porsche will fight it and a jury will decide or it will be settled out of court. 

apias:

Carlos from Spain:

I can see it now, big sticker in the cup: "Careful, this hot coffee is... hot, and hot things burn. Manipulate safely or we will have to pay you a lot of money"

So if a person buys a kitchen knife and cuts himself because its very sharp, he sues the manufacturer because its was "too sharp"? 

Kitchen knives are expected to be sharp; in fact, they are more dangerous when dull.

Coffee is not expected to be so hot that it causes 3rd degree burns in an instant. So, yes, at the least a warning to the customer indicating the burn risk from McDonald's exceptionally hot coffee -- i.e., that this particular coffee at this excessively hot temperature should not be consumed or opened in a moving vehicle until it cools. Remember, even attempting to drink this coffee, as served, carries a risk of serious internal burns. Is that also "user error"?

Kitchen knives are expected to be sharp, but "hot" coffee is supposed to be... luke warm. Makes total sense 

⇒ Carlos - Porsche 991 Carrera GTS