OT: Someone brought up the big lie . . .

[TenerHallTerror]

credit to franco fan

we're up against the tide here, and the most prefect example is the "McDonald's hot coffee lady"

so as an experiment, post your brief understanding of the "facts" of that incident.

and here we are, decades later, most people still believe the big lie . . .

 

[psu7113]

credit to franco fan

we're up against the tide here, and the most prefect example is the "McDonald's hot coffee lady"

so as an experiment, post your brief understanding of the "facts" of that incident.

and here we are, decades later, most people still believe the big lie . . .

As I recall, it wasn't as simple as a lady being dumb enough to to place a hot cup of coffee between her legs as she sat in her car. The coffee in question was heated to a ridiculously hot temperate, McDonalds knew it, and in fact had a practice of keeping coffee that hot despite a recognition that it could be dangerous to customers. I think the "facts" were something along those lines. Thus, McDonalds had significant legal exposure to punitive type damages. That is what gave the case value.

 

[psuro]

She should have had a V-8

 

[Victor E. Bell]

The lady was in a car with her daughter or niece (I forget which) and by whatever means, the lid came off her McD's coffee and spilled on her lap and she was badly burned. She initially went after McD's to cover her medical expenses because she said the java was too hot and they refused so she went after them and got the big award from a jury. My bare bones understanding of it.

 

[john4psu]

 

[TenerHallTerror]

The lady was in a car with her daughter or niece (I forget which) and by whatever means, the lid came off her McD's coffee and spilled on her lap and she was badly burned. She initially went after McD's to cover her medical expenses because she said the java was too hot and they refused so she went after them and got the big award from a jury. My bare bones understanding of it.

I believe it was her nephew or grand nephew

you're right, though. they had initially asked McDs to cover medical expenses. her injuries were very damaging and grotesque. McDs refused.

when they went to court, they were only seeking a few thousand dollars to cover medical expenses. the jury awarded a few million in punitive damages (as is the law) based on 2 days worth of profits for McDs from their coffee.

A judge later reduced that amount. McDs appealed. the parties later settled for a much lower amount.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

here is a relevant bonus question:

how did this misinformation make it to the public consciousness??

 

[coveydidnt]

I believe it was her nephew or grand nephew

you're right, though. they had initially asked McDs to cover medical expenses. her injuries were very damaging and grotesque. McDs refused.

when they went to court, they were only seeking a few thousand dollars to cover medical expenses. the jury awarded a few million in punitive damages (as is the law) based on 2 days worth of profits for McDs from their coffee.

A judge later reduced that amount. McDs appealed. the parties later settled for a much lower amount.

The backstory is more interesting. The story behind the story.

Environmentalists protested & demanded McDonalds stop using styrofoam coffee cups. (Even though they were easily and cheaply recyclable). The greenies carried the day and McDs had to switch to cardboard cups.

The cardboard cups didn't hold heat as well, so customers complained that the coffee was cold by the time they got home or to the office.

So McDs was forced to raise the temperature of their coffee. Setting themselves up for the suit. Not to mention that the old styrofoam cups had a more secure lid and more stable structure so they were less prone to spillage in rhe first place.

Nice job envio-freaks.

The fact that the cup change & lawsuit happened at all was the result of a massive misinformation campaign about styrofoam packaging.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

I believe it was her nephew or grand nephew

you're right, though. they had initially asked McDs to cover medical expenses. her injuries were very damaging and grotesque. McDs refused.

when they went to court, they were only seeking a few thousand dollars to cover medical expenses. the jury awarded a few million in punitive damages (as is the law) based on 2 days worth of profits for McDs from their coffee.

A judge later reduced that amount. McDs appealed. the parties later settled for a much lower amount.

I will admit though, that up until maybe two years ago I bought the story that she got a free Powerball ticket out of this thing solely based on a minor incident, by an incompetent and spiteful jury. This has come up before on this board and some others here and a little research straightened me out on the topic, and reaffirmed my notion that you can't believe everything you read and everything requires at least basic due diligence. Now, did the McDonald's Mothership help establish the cash bonanza story with the public? Another interesting question that's hard to know the answer to.

 

[coveydidnt]

I will admit though, that up until maybe two years ago I bought the story that she got a free Powerball ticket out of this thing solely based on a minor incident, by an incompetent and spiteful jury. This has come up before on this board and some others here and a little research straightened me out on the topic, and reaffirmed my notion that you can't believe everything you read and everything requires at least basic due diligence. Now, did the McDonald's Mothership help establish the cash bonanza story with the public? Another interesting question that's hard to know the answer to.

The enviromentalistas actually wanted McDs to serve drinks without lids at all.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-02/news/mn-3711_1_foam-packages

 

[TenerHallTerror]

The backstory is more interesting. The story behind the story.

Environmentalists protested & demanded McDonalds stop using styrofoam coffee cups. (Even though they were easily and cheaply recyclable). The greenies carried the day and McDs had to switch to cardboard cups.

The cardboard cups didn't hold heat as well, so customers complained that the coffee was cold by the time they got home or to the office.

So McDs was forced to raise the temperature of their coffee. Setting themselves up for the suit. Not to mention that the old styrofoam cups had a more secure lid and more stable structure so they were less prone to spillage in rhe first place.

Nice job envio-freaks.

The fact that the cup change & lawsuit happened at all was the result of a massive misinformation campaign about styrofoam packaging.

snooze. your schtick is boring

 

[Bob78]

I believe it was her nephew or grand nephew

you're right, though. they had initially asked McDs to cover medical expenses. her injuries were very damaging and grotesque. McDs refused.

when they went to court, they were only seeking a few thousand dollars to cover medical expenses. the jury awarded a few million in punitive damages (as is the law) based on 2 days worth of profits for McDs from their coffee.

A judge later reduced that amount. McDs appealed. the parties later settled for a much lower amount.

I could be wrong, but didn't the other important info to come out was that McD's had been sued over this same issue multiple times before and had always either settled or made the issue go away without correcting the core problem that caused these scaldings? The court - or the jury - got pissed off when they heard that, and the medical expenses being covered was just part of it.... they wanted to send a message to McD's and others to start considering something more than cost-effectiveness when consumers raised a legitimate point.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

I could be wrong, but didn't the other important info to come out was that McD's had been sued over this same issue multiple times before and had always either settled or made the issue go away without correcting the core problem that caused these scaldings? The court - or the jury - got pissed off when they heard that, and the medical expenses being covered was just part of it.... they wanted to send a message to McD's and others to start considering something more than cost-effectiveness when consumers raised a legitimate point.

IIRC McDs had over 700 incidents of customers being burned by their coffee prior to this incident. but let's blame the enviro-whackos!!!

 

[kijanalives]

The backstory is more interesting. The story behind the story.

Environmentalists protested & demanded McDonalds stop using styrofoam coffee cups. (Even though they were easily and cheaply recyclable). The greenies carried the day and McDs had to switch to cardboard cups.

The cardboard cups didn't hold heat as well, so customers complained that the coffee was cold by the time they got home or to the office.

So McDs was forced to raise the temperature of their coffee. Setting themselves up for the suit. Not to mention that the old styrofoam cups had a more secure lid and more stable structure so they were less prone to spillage in rhe first place.

Nice job envio-freaks.

The fact that the cup change & lawsuit happened at all was the result of a massive misinformation campaign about styrofoam packaging.

You lost me at "styrofoam is easily and cheaply recyclable"....

 

[coveydidnt]

You lost me at "styrofoam is easily and cheaply recyclable"....

Why? Its mostly air. They were recycling styrofoam into park benches, playground equipment.

The cardboard they use today takes up orders of magnitude more landfill space.

 

[coveydidnt]

IIRC McDs had over 700 incidents of customers being burned by their coffee prior to this incident. but let's blame the enviro-whackos!!!

700? Is that a lot? 0.00007% of McDs coffee customers had any complaint about this. Its highly likely that more people slipped & fell in there than had any coffee incident. 700 is not a lot.


So yes, please blow this isolated incident way out of proportion.

 

[john4psu]

700? Is that a lot? 0.00007% of McDs coffee customers had any complaint about this. Its highly likely that more people slipped & fell in there than had any coffee incident. 700 is not a lot.


So yes, please blow this isolated incident way out of proportion.

Not a lot!? Not a lot!? Seven hundred is greater than the attendance of some Pitt football games!

It in turn gets announced as 40,000.

 

[coveydidnt]

Not a lot!? Not a lot!? Seven hundred is greater than the attendance of some Pitt football games!

It in turn gets announced as 40,000.

Do they have standing to sue for pain & suffering?

 

[TenerHallTerror]

and another dipsh*t gets put on ignore . . .

 

[nitlion6]

The incident occurred mid 90s, 94 or 95. Styrofoam packaging changed 1990.
McDonalds was aware of upwards of 1,000 similar spills and harm to customers that occurred during a 10 year period (1980s to 1990s).
McDonald's kept their coffee heated to around 180 degrees Fahrenheit for taste.

 

[jerrycalpal]

Over 700 burn incidents. The woman asked for medical bills only.
McDonalds said " pound sand."

McDonalds was making the coffee scalding hot when
Most Americans were drinking Mr. Coffee.

The jury was punishing them for there behavior.
More companies need to be held accountable.

 

[AWS1022]

Why? Its mostly air. They were recycling styrofoam into park benches, playground equipment.

The cardboard they use today takes up orders of magnitude more landfill space.

A very high percentage of recyclables don't even get recycled. It just makes people feel better about themselves.

 

[interrobang]

When it was all said and done, the McDonalds coffee lady got pennies on the dollar of what the jury originally awarded her.

 

[SmithtonLion]

The big lie being that there can be no risk? That big lie?

From Wikipedia - nothing has changed? Know why? Cause people want HOT COFFEE! And if you spill it, you're going to get burned.

In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two locations tested served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[32]

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[33] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[33][34] The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[35] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).

 

[PSU87]

IIRC McDs had over 700 incidents of customers being burned by their coffee prior to this incident. but let's blame the enviro-whackos!!!

I don't drink coffee, but from what I've read it's supposed to be hot. Let's blame McDonald's for people spilling coffee on themselves.
Oh, and here's a little science factoid. ...liquid water cannot be made ANY hotter than 212F. Additional energy applied to water at that temperature goes into turning the water into steam (unless pressurized which a coffee cup surely ain't)
So when you boil water on your stove to make coffee....it's at 212, who's fault is it if you spill it on yourself?
But if you get McDonald's coffee, it's THEIR fault if you spill it on yourself. ...

 

[coveydidnt]

I don't drink coffee, but from what I've read it's supposed to be hot. Let's blame McDonald's for people spilling coffee on themselves.
Oh, and here's a little science factoid. ...liquid water cannot be made ANY hotter than 212F. Additional energy applied to water at that temperature goes into turning the water into steam (unless pressurized which a coffee cup surely ain't)
So when you boil water on your stove to make coffee....it's at 212, who's fault is it if you spill it on yourself?
But if you get McDonald's coffee, it's THEIR fault if you spill it on yourself. ...

Somehow its their fault, even though McDs handed her a cup with a lid &the lady took it off. While it was held between her legs as her grandson's Ford Probe had no cupholders.

 

[coveydidnt]

Over 700 burn incidents. The woman asked for medical bills only.
McDonalds said " pound sand."

McDonalds was making the coffee scalding hot when
Most Americans were drinking Mr. Coffee.

The jury was punishing them for there behavior.
More companies need to be held accountable.

700 "alleged" incidents out of a Billion (with a B) cups sold by McDs the year of this famous incident.

BTW, why is McDs more liable than Ford, who made a vehicle without cupholders, or the company that made her pants, which offered no protection from spills, or her grandson's auto insurance company, which should cover any accident inside the car?

 

[coveydidnt]

Fwiw...as a coffee-file. You BREW at 180-190 degrees. You serve at <160. You drink it between 120-140.

Starbucks serves at between 175 & 185.

700 incidents over a decade ... when McDs serves 1Billion cups per day?

If the entire population of PA participated in a lottery with those odds of winning, you know how many would win? Probabilty says zero or 1.

 

[SmithtonLion]

Fwiw...as a coffee-file. You BREW at 180-190 degrees. You serve at <160. You drink it between 120-140.

View embedded media

This a classic case of PR firms hired by the defense(McD's) manipulating the facts to suit their purpose.

IMO, the fact that there were 700 previous reported complaints of burns and scaldings, McD's wasn't concerned about safety.

Really? From Wikipedia.

In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.[2] An "admittedly unscientific" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F, and that two locations tested served hotter coffee than McDonald's.[32]

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[33] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[33][34] The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[35] Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C).

 

[nitlion6]

700 spills out of a million, a billion, a trillion that did cause harm. Makes no difference if you know with 100% certainty that your product as it is, is going to cause harm and you ignore that fact and do nothing. Eventually that inaction is going to cost you. It is a certainity McDonalds did a cost analysis and made a decision based on the probability economics of the situation. They already knew they were going to eventually have to pony up some cash.

Just because someone can't mentally process the information, that doesn't make it illogical or wrong minded. Just more difficult for some to grasp.

 

[wensilver]

here is a relevant bonus question:

how did this misinformation make it to the public consciousness??

Uh...the media echo chamber simply deciding what would appeal to TV viewers & headlines?

Or was it a bit more complicated than that and there was an active PR spin plan by McDonald's.

 

[NittPicker]

credit to franco fan

we're up against the tide here, and the most prefect example is the "McDonald's hot coffee lady"

so as an experiment, post your brief understanding of the "facts" of that incident.

and here we are, decades later, most people still believe the big lie . . .

You're right. Very few people know the real facts of the case including me and most people who have responded to this thread. The vast majority of the public simply thinks some lady spilled coffee on herself and used her own clumsiness as a reason to attack the innocent McDonald's Corporation. Even a line in a Toby Keith song goes, "Spill a cup of coffee get a million dollars". It's that kind of thinking which keeps the big lie going. The McDonald's PR spin money was well spent.

For anyone who thinks the woman had a tiny boo boo on her leg from the coffee, I encourage you to try to find photographs of her injuries. I once attend a legal seminar and the photos were shown to the class. The injuries were horrendous.

 

[SmithtonLion]

You're right. Very few people know the real facts of the case including me and most people who have responded to this thread. The vast majority of the public simply thinks some lady spilled coffee on herself and used her own clumsiness as a reason to attack the innocent McDonald's Corporation. Even a line in a Toby Keith song goes, "Spill a cup of coffee get a million dollars". It's that kind of thinking which keeps the big lie going. The McDonald's PR spin money was well spent.

For anyone who thinks the coffee woman had a tiny boo boo on her leg from the coffee, I encourage you to try to find photographs of her injuries. I once attend a legal seminar and the photos were shown to the class. The injuries were horrendous.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not everything can be perfectly safe. It cannot, economically speaking. Sometimes the best answer is "do nothing"

I know that's a tough concept, but it is often times the right answer.

Look carefully at my earlier post....even after all this, McDonalds, Starbucks, everyone STILL serves coffee that is at the same temperature that burned the lady.

Is it because they hate people? Is it because they just don't care? Or is it more likely that the best answer is that, regrettably, coffee needs to be hot to be enjoyed, and occasionally some people will be burned?

 

[NittPicker]

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not everything can be perfectly safe. It cannot, economically speaking. Sometimes the best answer is "do nothing"

I know that's a tough concept, but it is often times the right answer.

Look carefully at my earlier post....even after all this, McDonalds, Starbucks, everyone STILL serves coffee that is at the same temperature that burned the lady.

Is it because they hate people? Is it because they just don't care? Or is it more likely that the best answer is that, regrettably, coffee needs to be hot to be enjoyed, and occasionally some people will be burned?

I'll put you on the list of people who don't know all the facts about the McDonald's case. That OK. I'm on the list too as is almost everyone else who tries to discuss the issue. I certainly know more about the case now that I did in the past. And whether or not everything can be made perfectly safe isn't the issue either. It's about a multi billion dollar corporation knowing about a potential safety issue and not caring enough to even take one step toward making changes. They just didn't give a damn. That's why the jury made their decision.

Anyway, the real issue of the OP was people believing the big lie. McDonald's was used as an example. Once the big lie is believed by the public at large it's hard for the truth to gain any traction. The McDonald's discussion on this thread is a great example of that.

 

[SmithtonLion]

I'll put you on the list of people who don't know all the facts about the McDonald's case. .....

Anyway, the real issue of the OP was people believing the big lie. McDonald's was used as an example. Once the big lie is believed by the public at large it's hard for the truth to gain any traction. The McDonald's discussion on this thread is a great example of that.

Please put me on the list of people who knew all the facts of the McDonald's case. Here are facts I knew years ago.

1. The woman was terribly burned. Not some minor burn, but burns that required skin grafts.

2. The woman and her attorneys asked for only a little money at first. McD's wouldn't settle.

3. There were a few iterations of awards, scalebacks, appeals, and finally an undisclosed settlement for way less than the original award.

4. McDonalds (and every other major coffee server) have had many such incidents. Real incidents.

None of that matters. Only one thing matters - can something economically feasible be done to make it better. The answer, in this case, is "Nope - people like their coffee hot, and no one wants to pay for some self-limiting mechanism to prevent accidents of this nature.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

700 spills out of a million, a billion, a trillion that did cause harm. Makes no difference if you know with 100% certainty that your product as it is, is going to cause harm and you ignore that fact and do nothing. Eventually that inaction is going to cost you. It is a certainity McDonalds did a cost analysis and made a decision based on the probability economics of the situation. They already knew they were going to eventually have to pony up some cash.

Just because someone can't mentally process the information, that doesn't make it illogical or wrong minded. Just more difficult for some to grasp.

on a related note, IKEA just settled for $50 million with 3 families over deaths of infants from dressers that tipped over . . .

 

[TenerHallTerror]

I'll put you on the list of people who don't know all the facts about the McDonald's case. That OK. I'm on the list too as is almost everyone else who tries to discuss the issue. I certainly know more about the case now that I did in the past. And whether or not everything can be made perfectly safe isn't the issue either. It's about a multi billion dollar corporation knowing about a potential safety issue and not caring enough to even take one step toward making changes. They just didn't give a damn. That's why the jury made their decision.

Anyway, the real issue of the OP was people believing the big lie. McDonald's was used as an example. Once the big lie is believed by the public at large it's hard for the truth to gain any traction. The McDonald's discussion on this thread is a great example of that.

that was my point. we fight an uphill battle because people cling to their ignorance rather than educate themselves on the facts.

even after we point out that MOST of the information about this incident in the public conscience is wrong, was paid for by McDs, was part of a massive tort reform movement to install liability caps in courts . . . .

we STILL have a number of "yeah but still" posters . . .

 

[SmithtonLion]

that was my point. we fight an uphill battle because people cling to their ignorance rather than educate themselves on the facts.

even after we point out that MOST of the information about this incident in the public conscience is wrong, was paid for by McDs, was part of a massive tort reform movement to install liability caps in courts . . . .

we STILL have a number of "yeah but still" posters . . .

In order to assist you in your future "thinking" endeavors, I offer the following:

It is not the facts that are in dispute. If you read my post above, I think that even you will agree that my facts are correct and complete.

It is the theory upon which those facts rest that is in dispute.

Americans believe that there must always be some risk, that for progress, there will be SOME harm. The difference between chaos and progress is that thinking people learn from their mistakes and don't repeat them and that thinking people realize that most everything, including life/death comes down to some form of economic analysis.

Democrat voters have been trained to think that all negative events must have someone with deep pockets to blame and attack. It is sad that this has been done to them, but that's what happens in a world where most people cannot think for themselves.

 

[artsandletters]

on a related note, IKEA just settled for $50 million with 3 families over deaths of infants from dressers that tipped over . . .

Only three infants? That's not enough. How many dressers did they sell?

 

[coveydidnt]

In order to assist you in your future "thinking" endeavors, I offer the following:

It is not the facts that are in dispute. If you read my post above, I think that even you will agree that my facts are correct and complete.

It is the theory upon which those facts rest that is in dispute.

Americans believe that there must always be some risk, that for progress, there will be SOME harm. The difference between chaos and progress is that thinking people learn from their mistakes and don't repeat them and that thinking people realize that most everything, including life/death comes down to some form of economic analysis.

Democrat voters have been trained to think that all negative events must have someone with deep pockets to blame and attack. It is sad that this has been done to them, but that's what happens in a world where most people cannot think for themselves.

Exactly right. Of course in the case they are trying to compare to, the Sandusky debacle, the OP & francofan apply exactly the opposite logic from what they spew in this case. Namely, that the accusers are at fault, and brought harm to a large organization, Penn State.

Failing that, they then argue that even larger organizations (PA government, "the media") are to be blamed and should pay to make it all better.

The common thread in all their blither blather is wishful thinking.