McDonald's and hot coffee warning

Economics Political Theory
1

I was wondering what you guys thought about the story of the lady at McDonald’s who got scalded by hot coffee. There are some potentially disturbing images on Quora, where I read the story, so I will just copy-paste the text here:

What are some news stories that the American mainstream media completely misconstrued and/or presented out of context that ended up helping change American laws or culture?

That someone spilled coffee on them at McDonalds and sued for some type of profit scam.

Here are the facts of the case. A 79 year old woman named Stella Liebeck ordered coffee at McDonalds in 1992. When she went to add milk and sugar to the coffee (that was between her legs) the top popped off and she got 3rd degree burns on her thighs, groin and buttocks.

Records show that six percent of her body suffered 3rd degree burns. Sixteen percent of her body was listed as having 1st and second degree burns. She was immediately hospitalized and over the next 8 days she underwent skin grafts and burn treatments for her legs, groin and buttocks. Then two years of follow up burn treatments were also required.

At the time all she asked for was that McDonalds pay her medical expenses of $20,000. It was erroneously reported in the press that she was asking for a million dollars. McDonalds offered her $800. She hired an attorney who bumped the settlement number up to $90,000.

The argument was that McDonalds was serving coffee that was dangerously hot. In 1992 McDonalds policy was coffee had to be over 180 degree when served (coffee is served at 130 degree in the food industry these days). It was noted that food this temp caused 3rd degree burns and that it would cause the cup to expand so much the lid would not fit appropriately.

That was agreed to be true in court. But what really did it was the discovery McDonalds had nearly a thousand similar complaints about serious burns from their coffee over the last few years. The case was settled in 1995 where the jury ruled against McDonalds for a $640,000.

In other words she won. It was not a frivolous lawsuit. Yet this case was presented in the American media as another example of frivolous law suits by greedy, lazy Americans trying to sponge off of corporations. Everywhere you went people laughed at the idea that someone could sue for a coffee burn. The government quickly seized this moment (and erroneously reported story) to help pass tort reform capping the amount people can sue a corporation for and insisting that they use mediators instead of trial judges. The lie about the truth of the hot coffee case helped tort reform to pass changing the accountability we have in corporate America.

What I was wondering is how this case would be viewed in terms of libertarian/natural rights morality/law. I.e., on the surface, it seems to me that her rights were not violated. She paid for the coffee, and she got what she paid for. It’s not even like fraud was committed, although one could argue that if a community standard is to serve coffee that does not cause serious burns when spilled, serving a super-hot coffee without a label is fraud, but not necessarily the case of a tort, as far as the damanges are concerned. I.e., they should give her money back for coffee, but not pay for the damages.

I am asking about legal aspect of the issue only. Obviously, under free-market conditions, competition would ideally rout out such problems (although, why hasn’t it in this case?).

Also, this comment —

The way I heard it, McDonald’s made the coffee that hot because they also offered free refills at the time. And having coffee you couldn’t drink immediately cut down on the number of refills.

— made me think about how some activities can be considered immoral, but not illegal.

2

What is the first step of making coffee at home? (The old fashion way and not with some fancy machine).

Any child will tell you - boil water!

What is the temperature of water? 100 degrees celcius or 212 degrees fahrenheit. You serve your coffee to yourself or to your guests about 32 degrees above what Mcdonalds did according to your report. Are you being immoral?

3

I’d probably sue as well. What if you ordered some “hot” soup and then it gives a 3rd degree burn to your tongue? Shit would suck.

4

I think the answer is: expectations of those being served. Imagine they served some poisonous fish in Japan that everyone (in Japan) knew you have to drink sake after eating to neutralize the poison. I didn’t know and got poisoned. Can I sue them?

Now imagine I served a poisonous fish in US, where nobody has heard of such a practice, and got a bunch of people (who thought they were eating some innocent dragon roll) poisoned.

5

Well, it’s probably not a good idea to put anything remotely hot in between your legs. Did she not think coffee can badly burn her or something?

There are probably legitimate reasons to sue a company over coffee burns. However, I never found this particular case to be one where the actions of the company are at fault.

6

I seriously doubt that anyone drinks coffee that’s boiling or even close to boiling. Drinking water at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in seconds, if not sooner. Apparently a cup of coffee served at home has an average temperature of only 135-140 degrees Fahrenheit (source).

As I see it, the case hinged on how the coffee spilled in the first place. According to the link I provided above, the plaintiff was in the process of removing the lid (so she could add cream and sugar to the coffee) when the entire contents spilled onto her lap. Now it’s possible that her knees came together for some reason as she took the lid off, but I think that would’ve only caused some of the coffee to come out. I think the only way for the entire contents to spill onto her lap would be for the entire cup to pitch toward her. Such a pitching action could happen if 1) she removed the lid with sufficient force to generate a noticeable torque (rotational force) on the cup and 2) her knees’ grip on the sides of the coffee cup wasn’t enough to overcome this torque. Removing the lid by pulling its far side up and toward her would’ve provided the greatest probability of it pitching toward her. Pulling its near side up and away from her would’ve tended to torque the cup away from her.

7

As I see it, the case hinged on how the coffee spilled in the first place.

She didn’t rest it on a table…

8

I never said anyone drinks it boiled. I said it is prepared by boiling water first. If you prepare and serve it immeidately after, then you are going to be not too far from it.

9

I think this is an issue where legality, morality, ethics, and common sense get confused. Personally I don’t see a legal basis for suing. Morally and ethically it’s a little more complex. From the common sense angle, I would want to ask someone in McDonald’s if they really thought it was a good idea to serve anything, at a drive through no less, that was hot enough to require asbestos gloves to hold it, and which could give your customers second and third degree burns if even slightly mishandled. It is a bit of a face-palm moment on their part to say the least.

And I’ve been in this situation myself. I actually have a permanent scar on my lower right abdomen from spilled tea from Starbucks. I didn’t sue. It was my fault. I put it on a usually flat portion of the dash for a moment, not realizing the car was on a steep enough grade to make it unstable. Subsequently it fell and burned… and didn’t stop burning until I jumped out of the car and took my damn shirt off.

I didn’t deserve a settlement.

Someone probably should talk to restaurant owners and ask them how fucking hot their drinks really need to be.

10

True, you didn’t say anyone drinks it boiled. But neither did you say otherwise. And it seemed to me that you were implying that people normally drink coffee at just under boiling. My point is that I seriously doubt that.

11

I think it’s reasonable to assume that the coffee McDonald’s serves is immediately ready to consume, just like the food they serve. So another important question is, at what temperature do people typically consume coffee? I think that temperature should be the temperature McDonald’s coffee is at when it’s served.

12

So, why don’t you think you should get a settlement for your injury?

In general, what’s libertarian principle regarding product safety? I have read about the economic side of it – but what about the legal side? If someone sells me a car that explodes, and it’s clear that he has received hundreds/thousands complaints about exploding cars, does he owe me damages? Can we really say that once the product changed hands and became my own, it’s not his responsibility what happens to it?

13

“So, why don’t you think you should get a settlement for your injury?”

Because I knew it was hot, and I put it in an unsecure place when secure ones were available, but simply less convenient. In terms of legal liability I knew a burn was possible, perhaps even likely depending on how I handled the stuff. The fact that it was virtual lava in a cup doesn’t change that, it does call their judgement into question though as to the potential severity of injury possible from their products. As another poster stated, it is reasonable to think the drink should be, you know, drinkable. I wasn’t planning to smelt ore in it before I downed it.

I don’t think I deserve a settlement because if I were to look at the situation as a judge, I would tell myself I took a chance and screwed up, and since I don’t have a right not to be injured in this world as the result of what was mostly my own assinine decision, no settlement. Also, as a judge, I’d want to talk to a Starbucks/McDonald’s rep and ask them when liquid molten steel came into fashion as a beverage. It’s kind of a First Bite Free rule. Sure, if there were a rash of people getting blazed by breakfast beverages, there might be an issue. But there aren’t. There are just a few jackasses like myself who rolled the dice and got burned, literally. My decision as a judge would be to let the odd incident go, but get concerned about a pattern of severe burns. One or two here and there suggests the beverages can be handled safely. A series of them would suggest they’re serving an unsafe product.

14

Right, so the question is, in case of McDonalds, whether their customers knew that coffee would cause 3rd-degree burns. If they thought it would not just merely scald them, then maybe they would be more careful with it.

What difference does it make whether there was a series of incidents or not? In the case of McDonalds, btw, there was a series of incidents with hot coffee that they knew about before the lady. People complained their coffee was so hot that, upon being spilled, it would scald them. Beverage spils happen – and not, by the way, only when someone is being a jackass, but also accidentally; I’ve spilled tea and coffee just because I got a cramp in my hand or because I got distracted by something and tipped the cup, etc.

But I still don’t see how the lady’s natural rights were violated.

I also don’t see what difference it makes whether it is reasonable for someone to sell a super-hot beverage or not. Someone makes a decision to make product X; another person makes a decision to buy it. There is a meeting of the minds, no coercion – what’s the problem? The only problem I see is if the person expected to get something else.

15

I mean, if I decide to poison you and sell you a pie that you think is a regular pie, but in reality, I added the poison to it – did I violate your rights? I did, because you never asked me to poison you. You only paid for the pie. The poison was my intentional violation of your property rights.

But if I, for instance, was negligent and sold you a product that was spoiled, with the same effect. Should I owe you damages? How did I violate your rights; maybe we can say that as long as you willingly paid for “that pie” and I gave it to you without coercion, everything is hunky-dory? Where was the aggression? It was your responsibility to investigate whether my pies cause food poisoning to my customers.

16

This:

The Actual Facts about the McDonald’s Coffee Case

Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Is not really a source so much as hearsay. This however could be considered a source:

National Coffee Association - How to Brew Coffee

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.

. . .

Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing…If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

So in actuality people do drink coffee at temperatures “even close to boiling”. The reason it can be done was discussed in your original article: the temperature of the liquid tends to quickly dissipate absent something to hold it in. The reason Liebeck was burned so badly was because her clothing absorbed the hot liquid and allowed it to hold its temperature for a longer period of time.

17

“I still don’t see how the lady’s natural rights were violated.”

Since we’re not talking about criminal law, but civil, of what relevance are her natural rights? I mean, were we in an entirely private system, would they not be responsible to any degree whatsoever in your mind if they simply printed an implied consent contract on the side of each cup that said, “Warning, this coffee may rip your fucking skin off?” If that warning wasn’t on there, and the general expectation with such drinks is that you could drink them without melting your digestive tract or burning your tongue clear out of your mouth, would they have any liability? I think if they were part of say a voluntary certification org, and that org told them to pay up and lower the temp of their coffee, that would be perfectly reasonable.

And more broadly speaking, just because someone may be within their rights to do something doesn’t mean it’s to be done. I’m well within my rights to paint my house in polka dots. Would people be out of line asking me what drugs I took to make me think it would be a good idea, or if they tried to pressure me to unfuck my house’s paint job?

18

Intredasting thread. I was burnt by hot coffe when I was about 5-6 year old. 1st (and probably 2nd, don’t remember now) degree burns on my left hand, no scars though. It was my fault (or an accident I’d say), but yeah, hot coffe can burn you, especially if you are wearing clothes, like this lady. McDonalds is partly to blame, but the biggest blame is on woman, because it was her mistake. McDonalds were idiots to sell products that are not ready to consume. Yeah, some people like slurping almost boiling liquids, but in general, it should be just a common sense. But legally, there is no blame on Mc part, I think. Stupid 'mericans.

19

I don’t understand the question of relevance of natural rights. If there was no case of aggression, then why should someone pay up?

I am emotionally sympathetic to the view that a vendor who sells harmful product has to pay, but I am trying to figure out the legal principle (from libertarian point of view) justifying this emotion. What concerns me is that we are forcing X to pay for the damages that Y’s own property did to Y. I read Kinsella’s argument about negligence, but he doesn’t talk about the situation when I was negligent, and your property caused damage.

I would certainly agree that not everything that is legal should be done. But what does this have to do with awarding damages?

20

“I don’t understand the question of relevance of natural rights. If there was no case of aggression, then why should someone pay up?”

Because fraud is considered aggression, and when you sell something to drink that’s really more suitable for stripping varnish off a foot locker, that can be seen as a violation of the contract that you’re buying something to drink that you expect to, you know, drink. Without causing major injury. If that coffee did that to her thighs, what do you think it would have done to her throat had she taken a nice gulp? We’re not talking natural rights, we’re talking contract law. You can have a “What the fuck were you thinking?” clause, or it can end up being the prevailing standard. Either way, natural rights aren’t a guarantee that disputes won’t arise and be settled outside those bounds, depending on what the participants see as their vital interests in the case’s outcome.

Again, assume a totally private system to avoi all the government BS. Had she spilled the coffee and gotten a mildly irritating burn, and tried to sue, McDonald’s would have likely been able to tell her to go to hell, and the majority of the community would have agreed and sent her on her way, no harm to McDonald’s business. However, the injuries she did get would make most reasonable people at least empathize with her, and perhaps inquire as to why McDonald’s was selling a breakfast beverage at the temperature roughly the same as the Earth’s core. In which case McDonald’s might agree to pay up some money to mollify her and satisfy the community, who may not hold them strictly responsible, but still might want to see some action from them anyway to satisfy their perceived contractual requirements under the “What The Fuck Were You Thinking?” clause, be it real or implied. As in, “What the fuck were you thinking selling coffee that hot to someone in a drive-through who presumably wanted to drink it right then?”