after the lid on her coffee popped off while in her car. She got 1st and 2nd degree burns according to article.
Her lawyers argued that Starbucks should warn people that the lids can pop off. She was awarded $15k for medical bills (ok reasonable) and $85k for pain and disfigurement.
I feel sorry that she got burned (ouch). Not sure what kind of disfigurement you can get from 2nd degree burns (blistering) although I'd bet it sure did sting.
I wonder if the employees put the lid on and that is why she had a case?
Anyway, common sense is always ruled out in these cases - meaning, how many of you have every had a lid pop off a drink and spill on your shirt or lap? If it was an unusual occurrence for a lid to pop off I could understand the action and award, but lids pop off all the time. She has probably had spills in her past and while they did not burn her before, it probably did happen so she should have been aware that it could happen. I'd bet most of you all check lids before drinking, even lids you put on before drinking, especially in a car.
Anyway it is no longer a shock to see these lawsuits, but it still makes me shake my head.
Starbucks sued for lid popping off - (
New Window )
Apparently, McDs had been dangerously super-heating their coffee, as company policy, and the lady very seriously burned herself as a consequence. But I think that decision was for substantially more than $100k, and actually forced McDs to change their company policy and adopt more sensible procedures with respect to their hot beverages, and had ripple effects throughout the restaurant industry.
I think you can find it on Netflix.
The size of this Starbucks lawsuit makes me think that maybe SBux is admitting fault with respect to an isolated incident/accident.
Apparently, McDs had been dangerously super-heating their coffee, as company policy, and the lady very seriously burned herself as a consequence. But I think that decision was for substantially more than $100k, and actually forced McDs to change their company policy and adopt more sensible procedures with respect to their hot beverages, and had ripple effects throughout the restaurant industry.
I think you can find it on Netflix.
The size of this Starbucks lawsuit makes me think that maybe SBux is admitting fault with respect to an isolated incident/accident.
Yeah, it was $278k I think in that one. I think you are right on the temp being excessive, although anything over 125 degrees can burn you, so 175, 190, 205, you are getting burned. I also think the number was reduced in that older lawsuit. I still question that a 78 year old woman wouldn't know that placing a hot cup of coffee between her legs in a car is a dangerous thing. We did have a big discussion here a few years back about that one.
unless there is some principle that makes them need to appeal to avoid other lawsuits they pay the 100k and move on.
It's like a $10 fine for you and me. You don't question that.
Starbucks is a $20B company. 100k is a win.
Problem with Starbucks, it's their employee that puts on the lid. They make a big deal about their Baristas making personal connections and crafting the perfect drink. Is unreasonable to assume, their trained to put the lid on correctly and double check? Personally, I always recheck.
The brewing temperature of the water used is very important. It should be between 195 F (91 C) and 205 F (96 C). The closer to 205 F (96 C) the better. Boiling water (212 F - 100 C) should never be used, as it will burn the coffee.
Source: https://blackbearcoffee.com/resources/87
Spilling anything made at that temperature, especially with clothing on and not quickly removed can and will cause burns.
If the lid was faulty, then the serving company has liability. Consumer handling of the lidded coffee while moving is a personal responsibility.
Tort reform is long overdue.
Is personal responsibilities for ones own actions a thing of the past?
I think a closer look is needed than what is given in that article. I couldn't find an article that went into any depth on the Starbucks case but the MacDonald's lawsuit, as NoPeanutz pointed out, was not as frivolous as most believe.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
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.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
If, and I mean if, Starbucks acted similarly to McDonalds why should they not be held accountable. Clearly all the facts are not known but the race to judgement "seems to be a recurring theme throughout our society.'
Starbucks has been sued before for injuries sustained by hot coffee. If they super heated their coffee to 185 degrees, as did McDonalds, why can't they be held accountable for serving coffee 40-50 degrees hotter than typically served at home? What of their responsibility?
A NY Post article stated the coffee temperature was 190 degrees. Whether that is fact or allegation I don't know.
http://nypost.com/2017/05/18/woman-burned-by-starbucks-coffee-awarded-100k/
The brewing temperature of the water used is very important. It should be between 195 F (91 C) and 205 F (96 C). The closer to 205 F (96 C) the better. Boiling water (212 F - 100 C) should never be used, as it will burn the coffee.
Source: https://blackbearcoffee.com/resources/87
Spilling anything made at that temperature, especially with clothing on and not quickly removed can and will cause burns.
If the lid was faulty, then the serving company has liability. Consumer handling of the lidded coffee while moving is a personal responsibility.
Tort reform is long overdue.
Is personal responsibilities for ones own actions a thing of the past?
Maybe the reform needed is to the regulations regarding serving temperature of hot beverages. How is it OK to serve a beverage that if sipped will burn the consumer?
The OP's conception that it's okay to have a defective product if it's so defective that people should just assume it will fail is nonsense to me. You sell a cup of coffee with a lid that has a drinking hole in it, and it's a defense to say "well you should know our lid is a piece of shit and you shouldnt drink though it". That's bonkers.
But I get it. There is an abject hostility in some quarters to lawsuits. I've seen it during voir dire, where there's always people who dont believe in damages. It's partly just great PR work by the Chamber of Commerce.
Starbucks can make a more effective coffee lid. They choose not to, almost assuredly because of cost. Fine, I guess (not really). But when their cheap product fails and burns a customer, it's fair that they pay.
We decided instead to adopt a not-insane system. One which doesnt promote people being ripped off because of information asymmetry. Or leave the masses maimed and disfigured by poorly designed products.
This is like asking: Whatever happened to the ancient theory that a human could own another human, force him to do labor, sell him, and sell his children?
The brewing temperature of the water used is very important. It should be between 195 F (91 C) and 205 F (96 C). The closer to 205 F (96 C) the better. Boiling water (212 F - 100 C) should never be used, as it will burn the coffee.
Source: https://blackbearcoffee.com/resources/87
Spilling anything made at that temperature, especially with clothing on and not quickly removed can and will cause burns.
If the lid was faulty, then the serving company has liability. Consumer handling of the lidded coffee while moving is a personal responsibility.
Tort reform is long overdue.
Is personal responsibilities for ones own actions a thing of the past?
Quote:
Caveat emptor? Failure to accept personal responsibility for our actions seems to be a recurring theme throughout our society.
We decided instead to adopt a not-insane system. One which doesnt promote people being ripped off because of information asymmetry. Or leave the masses maimed and disfigured by poorly designed products.
This is like asking: Whatever happened to the ancient theory that a human could own another human, force him to do labor, sell him, and sell his children?
Information asymmetry? She didn't know the coffee was hot? And a comparison to slavery? Please.
Second degree burns depending on size and severity will scar. Size also makes a big difference. Most folks get burned cooking/frying and they tend to be little spots on forearms or hands that will blister, and you won't even know they were there after a few weeks. Larger areas, especially if they're to less exposed areas of skin, will leave large discolored areas of skin. It does not take 3rd deg burns to leave you scarred.
Now imagine if those large areas with 2nd degree burns were to your crotch. It's a little more than, "Damn, this sure does sting!"
Hell, my worst was from my left elbow to my left wrist when my FR jacket inexplicably caught lit and stayed lit, about 60% around my forearm. It was a bit more painful than a "sting" and I still have discoloration there after 15yrs. And yes, it was only 1st and 2nd degree.
it seems like the reasonable man theory has sunk so low it's more like the barely functioning person theory.
But hot coffee? That seems low tech enough for the consumer to handle.
it seems like the reasonable man theory has sunk so low it's more like the barely functioning person theory.
That's a good point. Current thinking is that disclosure is a substitute for regulation. It's a concept we see across society. E.g. people who say sunlight if the best disinfectant for political corruption. Except it isnt -- we see lobbyists and interested parties donate money to pols (both parties), we see those entities getting special treatment. There is no shame.
We dont always defer to warning labels. You cant see an unsafe car with a window sticker saying "warning: you will die in any accident over 5 MPH". The flip side is that some warning labels really do help. You just get numb to them when a pack of peanuts warns you that it may have been processed in a facility where they process peanuts.
Quote:
In comment 13476107 ktinsc said:
Quote:
Caveat emptor? Failure to accept personal responsibility for our actions seems to be a recurring theme throughout our society.
We decided instead to adopt a not-insane system. One which doesnt promote people being ripped off because of information asymmetry. Or leave the masses maimed and disfigured by poorly designed products.
This is like asking: Whatever happened to the ancient theory that a human could own another human, force him to do labor, sell him, and sell his children?
Information asymmetry? She didn't know the coffee was hot? And a comparison to slavery? Please.
I wasnt talking about this case with information asymmetry. Though in this case, one could certainly believe that Starbucks knew a lot more about the dangers of the lid than she did (I dont know the facts).
As for the slavery reference, we've been posting too long for you to take everything I write as 100% serious. It was argument by absurd analogy.
But hot coffee? That seems low tech enough for the consumer to handle.
Well in the McDonalds case, which I've read about extensively, the issue was that they were selling coffee that was so hot that it was, medically speaking, unfit for human consumption.
Here I take it that the lid was allegedly unsafe and Starbucks knew about it. Why shouldnt that be something we protect consumers from? Why the hell should Starbucks sell a lid -- plainly designed for you to drink coffee from and which Starbucks knows that people use for that purpose -- that falls off and causes dangerous contents to spill out? Why not build a better lid?
How did the lid pop off? By normal usage? Was she drinking from it, or holding it between her legs (etc.)?
Deej making sense here thank you.
as an aside, I like my coffee with enough milk to cool it off and make it drinkable. They sell coffee sleeves because coffee is too hot to hold but it's ok to drink? That's my wife's superpower, if she spills it on herself it will burn but she can certainly drink it.
Deej making sense here thank you.
as an aside, I like my coffee with enough milk to cool it off and make it drinkable. They sell coffee sleeves because coffee is too hot to hold but it's ok to drink? That's my wife's superpower, if she spills it on herself it will burn but she can certainly drink it.
yeah, this thread is filled with anger and outrage. Way to mis-characterize and sensationalize, something you practically accused others of doing.
Pot? Kettle? which one are you?
EricJ : 11:34 am : link : reply
.
Pussy liberal horseshit
Tark10 : 11:39 am : link : reply
When will people be responsible for their own decisions?
Yup, got to love America. The only place on earth you can sue someone for not protecting you against yourself and your stupidity.
this galls me, repeatedly punishing companies for peoples mistakes
Gross Blau Oberst : 10:28 am : link : reply
Coffee is supposed to be brewed and served hot. If you want it cooler, then remove the lid and let it air cool, or add water, milk, ice to cool it off. You have a personal responsibility as a consumer to be careful and check the items once you receive it and during handling.
The brewing temperature of the water used is very important. It should be between 195 F (91 C) and 205 F (96 C). The closer to 205 F (96 C) the better. Boiling water (212 F - 100 C) should never be used, as it will burn the coffee.
Source: https://blackbearcoffee.com/resources/87
Spilling anything made at that temperature, especially with clothing on and not quickly removed can and will cause burns.
If the lid was faulty, then the serving company has liability. Consumer handling of the lidded coffee while moving is a personal responsibility.
Tort reform is long overdue.
Is personal responsibilities for ones own actions a thing of the past?
Whatever happened to the ancient theory
ktinsc : 10:04 am : link : reply
Caveat emptor? Failure to accept personal responsibility for our actions seems to be a recurring theme throughout our society.
Nope ... the guy says he's got to give it to me with a lid. At least I'm safe!
EricJ : 11:34 am : link : reply
.
Pussy liberal horseshit
Tark10 : 11:39 am : link : reply
When will people be responsible for their own decisions?
Yup, got to love America. The only place on earth you can sue someone for not protecting you against yourself and your stupidity.
this galls me, repeatedly punishing companies for peoples mistakes
Gross Blau Oberst : 10:28 am : link : reply
Coffee is supposed to be brewed and served hot. If you want it cooler, then remove the lid and let it air cool, or add water, milk, ice to cool it off. You have a personal responsibility as a consumer to be careful and check the items once you receive it and during handling.
The brewing temperature of the water used is very important. It should be between 195 F (91 C) and 205 F (96 C). The closer to 205 F (96 C) the better. Boiling water (212 F - 100 C) should never be used, as it will burn the coffee.
Source: https://blackbearcoffee.com/resources/87
Spilling anything made at that temperature, especially with clothing on and not quickly removed can and will cause burns.
If the lid was faulty, then the serving company has liability. Consumer handling of the lidded coffee while moving is a personal responsibility.
Tort reform is long overdue.
Is personal responsibilities for ones own actions a thing of the past?
Whatever happened to the ancient theory
ktinsc : 10:04 am : link : reply
Caveat emptor? Failure to accept personal responsibility for our actions seems to be a recurring theme throughout our society.
My apologies, there were more replies than I thought in that class. Still don't think it's the way I'd characterize the thread, but more than I thought, I apologize.
The Chamber of Commerce has done a staggering job getting it's anti-liability message out there, and getting it to stick. They have convinced a lot of people that all the undeservings out there are getting rich with junk lawsuits.
Getting litigious is only restricted to liberals?
Cant tell from that short article if thats what she did but I am guessing no.
The Chamber of Commerce has done a staggering job getting it's anti-liability message out there, and getting it to stick. They have convinced a lot of people that all the undeservings out there are getting rich with junk lawsuits.
True story. After the last of us had left the nest my parent's were thinking of selling the house and getting to a town with lower property taxes. Next door neighbor introduced my mother to a friend who was a real estate agent. My dad did a "sale by owner" and sold the house. Two years later my mother got subpoenaed. Seems the real estate agent, at home, had trouble opening a glass jar of food. To help, she tapped it vigorously with a dinner knife, and when she tried to open it again the glass broke and she cut her hand. Sued the food company on a product liability ground. My mother was called because she was listed as a client who the agent lost due to the injury (lost income). She actually had to testify at trial. The story was similar with many of her other "clients". Jury awarded $10k and told the company's attorney they awarded it because the felt sorry for her.
Hence the reason for my heightened skepticism.
1) McDonalds had a lot of burned customers, but felt it the number and the cost of settlements was not enough to change their practices.
2) The jury's punitive damages figure was based on a couple of days' coffee revenue. Pretty well thought-out. Hardly "out of control."
3) The award was reduced anyway.
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - ( New Window )
Maybe if the coffee turned out to be hot motor oil instead.
Lol some of you guys.
The issue, in part, is negligence. In the former McDonald's case, it was demonstrated that they were heating their coffee up WAY above industry standards or necessary for coffee. And that there had been prior issues/problems/complaints.
She may have done something silly putting hot coffee there, but she did it with a reasonable expectation that if it spilled she'd be in for a "damn, that's hot!" not 2nd degree blistering burns and extensive damage.
It's like when car companies determined that the cost of fixing known flaws is too costly compared to deaths that might occur. That's not OK.
Individuals and companies both have responsibilities. More often than not, when these headlines are made, people get very flawed information that makes the lawsuits seem as ridiculous as possible. That's not an accident. It's a media strategy.
The issue, in part, is negligence. In the former McDonald's case, it was demonstrated that they were heating their coffee up WAY above industry standards or necessary for coffee. And that there had been prior issues/problems/complaints.
She may have done something silly putting hot coffee there, but she did it with a reasonable expectation that if it spilled she'd be in for a "damn, that's hot!" not 2nd degree blistering burns and extensive damage.
It's like when car companies determined that the cost of fixing known flaws is too costly compared to deaths that might occur. That's not OK.
Individuals and companies both have responsibilities. More often than not, when these headlines are made, people get very flawed information that makes the lawsuits seem as ridiculous as possible. That's not an accident. It's a media strategy.
Also when it came time to settle that case, Mc Donald's took absurd stances instead of simply paying for her damages.. if they had simply paid her $15k for damages, no one would've known or cared.. after going over there details of the lawsuit, I definitely think Mc Donald's to blame and should actually get the scrutiny rather than everyone bashing the lady.. If you know you are at even partial fault.. except some responsibility and take the settlement agreement.. usually those agreements are fair and only cover damages..
The jury awarded 2M in damages, the judge reduced it to 2.5 times damages 85k in medical bills. Judge called it the worse case of corporate negligence he had ever seen. MD had over 700 complaints of the coffee being too hot. Coffee was kept at 200 degrees.
I realize it was the ladies first trip to the starbucks and she didn't know. Was she careless for a moment? Did she take a shortcut and get burned? Who knows but who would a jury side .
Apparently, McDs had been dangerously super-heating their coffee, as company policy, and the lady very seriously burned herself as a consequence. But I think that decision was for substantially more than $100k, and actually forced McDs to change their company policy and adopt more sensible procedures with respect to their hot beverages, and had ripple effects throughout the restaurant industry.
I think you can find it on Netflix.
The size of this Starbucks lawsuit makes me think that maybe SBux is admitting fault with respect to an isolated incident/accident.
I remember at the time thinking another frivolous lawsuit from a money hungry patron and her lawyer(s).
Then I watched an 1.5 hour documentary about the case that was released about 2 years ago(?). She deserved the money ....