All Companies Informative - Responsibility

Review by truckin21 on 2007-01-27
** moderator edit - removed user reference **

Why do I say stores are not responsible (To A Degree) for what they sell? What happened to McDonalds in the 70's? Some gal drove up to the drive thru, ordered a cup of coffee, sat that coffe between her legs and drove off. She stopped in traffic, spilling the coffee on her. Now, every knows that coffee is made with boiling water. Water boils at a temperarture of 210 degrees. For those of you who do not know, a water temperature of 180 degress is sufficient for sanitising. McDonalds did what they were required by law to do. They served this woman a cup of coffee that was drinkable. McDonalds did not spill the coffee on her, McDonalds did not burn her, Mcdonalds did not tell her to sit the cup between her legs and drive off. Yet, McDonalds had to pay her millions. For what??? Because SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HER ACTIONS!!! And, because of her now YOU don't have to be responsible for what you do. You can blame whoever you want to for what ever happens to you. Blame the credirt card company for your being indebt,(if you are). Like the guy tried to do with Burger King -- blame the person that sold you the food you eat, for your being over weight (if you are). Blame everybody for what ever happens to you because this ladfy has proven that you can. But, when you blame the stores, and sue them for YOUR NEGLIGENCE, don't get mad when the prices go up, Or maybe you will get mad at them for raising prices so they can pay for the insurance to cover the next frivilous law suit. Maybe you figure it is the stores responsibility to pay for everybody that doesnot accept responsibility for their own actions.

But, hey, this is America, you have the right to express your thoughts, and as long as I can breathe I WILL ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY to see that you maintain that right.
Comments:32 Replies - Latest reply on 2007-02-11
Posted by Nohandle on 2007-01-27:
Truckin21, why is your informative directed to Lidman? I don't think there are many among us who are not disgusted with the lack of responsibility individuals choose to take for themselves. For many it seems easier to blame someone else and also easier for those ridiculious lawsuits to follow. Who is to blame? An ignorant jury comes first to mine. Enough said on my part. Have a nice day or evening, whichever the case.
Posted by Nohandle on 2007-01-27:
I see you've taken Lidman out of your original comments. That's Ok. My response remains as written.
Posted by tander on 2007-01-27:
Thank You, for giving me "Freedom of Speech".
Posted by Skye on 2007-01-27:
Why pick on our Lidman?? He's a great, helpful, intellingent man, and would never write something like this for everyone to see. He would take it up directly with the individual. I don't get why this was directed at him either? And I never have seen a complaint from Lidman about trying to return merchandise without a receipt.

Posted by Skye on 2007-01-27:
This is a good review, and you make very valid points. I think too many people are always law suit happy, cha ching, let that cash register ring. Oh wait, they got my order wrong, compensate me with a free meals for the rest of my life. They looked at me funny, oh wait, they must be racists.
Posted by D. on 2007-01-27:
I must have missed the original post, because I didn't see anything about Liddy, and I don't know what was said about him...however, I don't agree that a review should be aimed at a particular member...if there are issues, it can be taken up on the community board or email to that person...However, with the way the post stands as I read it, I do agree that those are the reasons for price hikes and people have to use common sense above anything and everything else...they have to learn to say, "ahh..how stupid of me"...and learn from it.
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-01-27:
Thanks Skye & Nohandle and tander I am glad you have free speech.

Truckin21, first while I don't disagree with what you are saying in principle. I think you should keep it either in a specific case and don’t use that for a gross generalization or at least get it right.

The case you are talking about I remember well because she went for 3 million the judge gave her 1 and later on it was over turned she got nothing. Who do we blame? The lawyers who put her up to it in the first place. You are right every one is looking for the easy way out and to do that we simply blame some one else.

I think if you weren’t such a one sided person and of course always right, you would see it’s about 60/40 the store being the 60% wrong and the people being the 40% and the only way they keep getting away with it is because people like yourself would rather blame everybody else as long as it’s not you, then realize people do have the right to complain and also get what they paid for.
Posted by A. on 2007-01-27:
Sorry for the confusion folks. One of our moderators removed the username reference as it is not our policy to allow reviews directed at a particular user or person.
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-01-27:
One of the things that get my goat is all the times I have writen the same things you are saying here I am told how wrong I am. Thanks DB and as for people using common sense, I give up!
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-01-27:
Thank you Admin, this is quite unexspected.
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-01-27:
Posted by truckin21 on 2007-01-27:
My reply was not meant to be a personal assault to lidman. It was in response to his 1-2-3-final responses to my original post. If I afronted him I am sorry. He just gave me the impression that he thought stores accept returnables and give refunds regardless. If I read his response wrong I am sorry.
Posted by truckin21 on 2007-01-27:
As far as not having the exact particulars of the case, that is not what I was after. Regardless of whether or not she got 1 mil. or 10 mil. The fact remains that she REFUSED TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER OWN ACTIONS, and by doing so set a precident that says: "You don't have to accept responsibility. You do something to injure yourself, or cost yourself money, you can always sue some one else and make them pay". That review was not meant to be an assualt on any particular store/person. All it was meant for was to try and show people that think they are being abused, ignored, insulted, etc., look at yourself first. You get what you give.
Posted by Caliope on 2007-01-27:
Hi Lid/Skye! We live in a litigious society and it is only getting worse! However, no need to call out individuals and chastise them! I do agree with some of the points you outlined above. Have a good evening!
Posted by *Brenda* on 2007-01-27:
Sigh. The McDonalds thing was MCDONALD'S fault. Lidman, she didn't get nothing, they settled. Plus, she didn't go for
$3,000,000.00. Her lawyer initially went for $100,000.00. Initially, Stella's family only asked McDonald's for her out-of-pocket expenses, about $2,000 plus her daughter's lost wages. McDonald's offered only $800.

This is a good site that outlines the case:

From: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Read that website. There are so many more details than I am posting here.

1. It was in 1992, not the 70's.

2. During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

3. Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

4. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

5. The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public.
Posted by *Brenda* on 2007-01-27:
Sorry for the long post, I had to study the McDonalds case in my Torts & Personal Injury Law class and it's one of my pet peeves when people think it was all that woman's fault.
Posted by Skye on 2007-01-27:
Thanks *Brenda* :D
Posted by Skye on 2007-01-27:
At least we all agree to disagree :)
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-01-27:
Thanks Brenda I could not remember the particulars, my point was it was not her fault but the lawyers and everybody else that want to sew everybody. In other words I think you must take it a case at a time.
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-01-27:
I'm not a doctor so, I'm not 'sewing' anybody!
Posted by *Brenda* on 2007-01-27:
Yea, Lidman. I agree with you in general, people are very sue happy. Of course the lawyers pushed for whatever they could get, that's their job. My post was mainly directed to the original poster since he thinks that lawsuit was frivilous.

Oh, and by the way truckin, SHE WASN'T DRIVING. She was sitting in the passenger seat and they were PARKED.

But anyway, you know what? If I had third degree burns on my upper inner thighs, genitals and buttox because they want to keep their coffee hot enough to do so (when they were put on notice from the other 700 burn complaints), I think I'd push too. Skin grafts are horrible enough, imagine them on your genitals. OUCH!
Posted by *Brenda* on 2007-01-28:
truckin, next time you want to respond directly to Lidman or another user you should do so on their profile discussion board.
Posted by truckin21 on 2007-01-28:
I still don't see how you can say it was McDonalds fault. McDonalds didn't spill the coffee. If she had of gotten a
COLD cup then yes, she would have had a complaint. Everybody knows, or should know, that COFFEE is NATURALLY HOT. She did not order "iced coffee" or "cold coffe". She ordered a cup of coffee. Doesn't matter if she was sitting in the passenger seat, or driving, or standing outside. The fact remains: She knew the coffee was hot, she was the one that placed it in a precarious position. So, the verdict was reversed in the end, but look at what it caused. It has given people the right to NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Also, if they were PARKED how did she spill it?? She try to drink it like it was a glass of water?? I have bought coffee from fast food places many times, and yes it is hot, I can feel the heat from the cups, she coudn't fell that? She had no feeling in her hand? When people try to make excuses for things like this all they do is perpetuate the situation. All I am saying is: IF she had of taken the responsibility for HER being the one that caused the whole incident (McDonalds only sold her what she asked for--a cup of coffee) this would have never developed into something that has had repercussions to this day, and is costing ALL of us money.
Posted by *Brenda* on 2007-01-28:
The case was settled out of court. It was McDonald's fault because they chose to serve coffee at a temperature, above industry standards, that caused third degree burns. If this woman had a burn from a cup of coffee that was held at an industry standard temperature and she had first degree burns it would just be her fault. No one expects THIRD DEGREE burns from coffee. This is what a third degree burn looks like: http://corpreform.typepad.com/corpreform/3rdburn.jpg

Do you expect your coffee to do THAT? Do you expect it to charr your skin? Did she ask McDonalds for a cup of coffee hot enough to charr her skin?

The only reason you are blaming this case for others not accepting responsibility is because you are ignorant and refuse to acknowledge that Mcdonalds was negligent.
Posted by truckin21 on 2007-01-29:
Brenda: I read the report from the ATTORNEYS. They stated that McDonalds coffee was 200 degrees hotter than anyone elses' but they didnot give the other temps. A 79 year old woman would surely know that water boils at 210 degress. And in order to make coffee you have to boil water. The thing that I cannot figure is: What is the melting point of styrofoam? According to "McFact #9" McDonalds keeps their coffee at 1800 degrees?!?!? 200 degrees hotter than any other restaurants!! That means that the industry "norm" for coffee is 1600 degrees??!!??
If that is true, that cup would have melted the minute the coffee touched it!! The human skin is awhole lot tougher than those styrofoam cups. So, if that coffee was as hot as they say it was what happened to the cup?? And, speaking of not expecting burns: No one expects to be burned when they take a shower either, but peopel turn their hot water heaters up to 200 degrees and forget about what can happen and get burned, but they don't sue the tank manufacturer. People get burned every day to some degree or more. It is unfortunate that this happened, especially to an older person, but after reading the "CASE FACTS" as you put it, which by the way were written by lawyers, I still don't see how McDonalds can be held responsible. Customers know that coffee is HOT. It is supposed to be. Therefore, customers should be extra careful when handling hot coffee. I just don't think she was as careful as she could have been. They were on their way home from the airport. Doesn't say what time, probably morning as they stopped for "breakfast". Now, I don't know about you, but I don't drive in traffic and eat breakfast at the same time. And this was what? 1994-1997? (I say that because there are 2 different years mentioned) Their car didn't have cup holders?? I take it this was not the first time they had done this. Even as far back as the 50's you could buy cup holders to hang in the windows of the cars. Now, if I am as ignorant as you think I am, I don't think I would have taken the time to read this report and print it out. I have what they call a "pulp thermometer". Anybody that has ever pulled a Reefer knows what that is. It goes from 0-180 degrees. Tomorrow I am going to different restaurants in the area, and with their permission of course, get a temp reading on their coffee. This will include the local McDonalds. If their coffee is as hot as this report says it is (according to the report they haven't lowered it) then it will "burn" my thermometer. I will give you my findings tomorrow evening.
Posted by truckin21 on 2007-01-29:
OOPS; Brenda, I am sorry. I should have read farther before responding. Forget, and please forgive, my last post. There is a BIG discrepancy between your #2 post and the findlaw library report. McFact #1 states that "McDonalds knew their 1850 coffee was at least 200 hotter than other restaurants. I took this to mean 1850 degrees and 200 degrees. Yes, it does seem to be outlandish, but that is supposed to be a "Factual" article. Apparently it was not proof read. You state that the temps were 185 and 140. That is more reasonable, of course. Since water boils at 210, then 185 would be a reasonable "holding temp". Now, if as the report states; Mcdonalds coffe was 200 hotter than anybody else, that would mean the everybody else sold sub freezing coffee. See, I'm not as ignorant as you think I am. I still say: I don't think she did eveything she could have to prevent this incident.
Posted by truckin21 on 2007-01-29:
Well, I don't know where this ATLA fact sheet got its figures from. They say that coffee made at home is generally 135-140 degrees. Well, i ust made a pot with my "Wal-Mart Special" $9.95 12 cup coffee maker. It 'Temped out at 160. As Lipman says: I must be one-of-kind. 1974 I was a welder in the shipyards in Oregon. I was using a "scarfing tip" cleaning up a section of deck on a ship we were building. It was winter, temp was about 20 degrees, cold enough to make things icy. I slipped on a icy part of the deck, and the burning torch went down my glove. These torches burn at a temp of around 1500-1800 degrees. Yes I got burned on the heel of my hand, but it was nothing compared to the burn this lady sustained from the coffee. They say she was wearing a pair of sweatpants. These have a tendancy to retain liguids. Could it be possible that if she was wearing a pair of regular jeans, or slacks, she might not have been burned as bad??? The report says that the pants retained the liquid, keeping it next to her skin longer. If she had of been wearing regular jeans, or polyester pants, yes she probably would have been "burned", but since they do not absorb/retain liquids as fast as wool/cotton does she would ave had a better chance of avoidung the serious burns. Also, what was wrong with her grandson? She was 79 years old, didn't he see her trying to get the lid off, and if he did, why didn't he offer to help?? Not to detract from McDonalds responsibility, but it seems to me that there were things that could have been done to prevent the seriousness of this. Nobody wants to go thru the pain and suffering that this lady obviously did and there were thngs she could have done to prevent it, that is why she was found to be 20% at fault. It is a proven fact that 90% of ALL accidents (I call them incidents) could have been prevented. I think it should have been more on a 60-40 decision (Mcdonalds being 60% and her being 40%) but then who am I??? I'm just one of the few in this country that doesnot believe in accidents. They are incidents of people not paying attention to what they are doing.
Posted by *Brenda* on 2007-01-29:
So now a person has to make sure the pants they wear doesn't absord liquid just in case they spill coffee that's too hot to begin with? She has to have her grandson help her get the top off because she's old?

The melting point of styrofoam is approximatly 250 degrees F. In regards to the findlaw article, I think it's pretty obvious they meant 185.0 degrees and 20.0 degrees as stated in other articles. 1850 degrees could melt silver!

McDonalds was negligent because of the temperature of their coffee. They are negligent because they had notice of other burns and they refused to lower the temperature. It's not because they had stanard hot coffee or because they didn't have a warning on the cup. It's because they knew this could/would happen and did nothing. If it was coffee at an industry standard it probably wouldn't have even gotten to court. Did you look at that picture? Do you expect your coffee to do that?
Posted by truckin21 on 2007-01-31:
Brenda as usual I need to treat people like school kids. I did not say she had to wear a particular piece/type of clothing. What I did say was: "Would she have been burned as bad as she was IF she had not been wearing sweatpants." I did not say her grandson had to help. I said: "If she was having trouble with the lid WHY didn't he OFFER to help?" There were a number of ways this could have been prevented, or lessoned. I am not/did not say that McDonalds was blameless. All I said was: "I think it should have been more like 60/40 instead of 80/20. I have ordered coffee from the counter and the driveup from just about every fast food there is, except Star Bucks, and it is always served in a styrofoam cup, and yes, sometimes it is too hot too handle, and if I do happen to spill it, which I haven't, I will be dammed if I would sue the person that served it. The truth is, whether hot or cold, scalding or tempid, I SPILLED IT THEY DIDN'T. I believe there was another point I brought up. They didn't say what kind of car it was, or what year. All they said was: "The car didn't have a cup holder". This was 1992. I am assuming (That word we all know) this was not the first time they have had drinks in the car. If it was pre-70's all she had to do was open the glovebox, if it had one. Also, as far back as the 60's you could go into any Fred Meyer, Wal-mart, Kmart, or auto parts store and for $0.99 buy a cup holder that hung on the door. All I am saying is: "There were alot of ways this COULD have been prevented. Maybe, none of them WOULD have prevented it. I am sorry that she got burned. But, due to the fact that NOTHING was done on her part to prevent her from being burned by something SHE should have know COULD HAVE BURNED HER, I think she should have been found to be more than 20% at fault. Yes, Mcdonalds should have paid for her medical because they did know that the possibilty of severe burns was there. But, $400,000? No way. I feel that the only reason she got $400,000 was because some "shyster" found an opportunity. Most attorneys in law suits charge a fee plus 25% plus expenses. That means he got $100,000, plus expenses, plus his fee. We will probably never know how much she received (I am going to try and research it through the "Freedom of Information Act") Since this was a Public trial with public ramifications.
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-02-09:
truck- Didn't the same woman that sued Mcdonalds get fired from Kmart because she was stealing from the charities because she said they did not pay her well, and she thought she earned the money because the people who the charity was for did not desreve the cash because they did not work for it?
Posted by Anonymous on 2007-02-09:
Brenda - That woman just needs to get a job. That way she could actually earn money like a normal person.
Posted by truckin21 on 2007-02-11:
ghostbuster: I don't know about that so I cannot comment. Doesn't matter whether she has a job, or not. My point was the decision should have been 60% - 40% or maybe even 50-50 because it doesn't matter HOW HOT THE COFFEE WAS, she is the one that spilled it. You buy a gun, you take that gun out and shoot some one, are you going to blame the manufacturer?? WHEN ARE WE GOING TO STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE THAT WILL NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBLITY FOR WHAT THEY DO?????

Your Name:
(displayed with your comment)
Your E-mail:

Your Experience/Advice:
Check spelling

By clicking submit you agree that you have read and accept the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy.

Note: All comments are reviewed by a moderator before being published. Please be sure to read our guidelines before commenting.