"Hot Coffee"

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Do you know why you will NEVER see a competently lead business pick up the medical bill, express their regret and so on?

Frivolous lawsuits! That is right, if a business even as much as hints that they could have done something differently they open themselves up to lawsuits. McDonald's would have been crazy to pay for her medical bills, as the family wanted them to do. Every lawyer with his salt would have refused to let them do it.


Now, regarding the complaints spanning two decades: The complaints goes to show that no one should be surprised that their coffee is hot! For at least two decades they have held the belief that coffee has to be served HOT!

Unless American home coffee machine brews at a significantly lower temperature - and I cannot imagine that; surely Americans loves great coffee as much as anybody else - the exact same thing would have happened to her, if she had spilled her own homemade coffee in the same manner.

a reply to: DupontDeux

Exactly why this is a great documentary. This was not a frivolous lawsuit imo and apparently the courts as well.

But Mcdes and the other PTB want you to believe it was,

a reply to: DupontDeux

Please forget about the coffee. Big picture is much wider than the coffee.

I will speak from my heart here as this affected me personally, in another country...

So, yeah, I was about your age at the time of the "coffee" incident, and I thought. "pffft, frivolous lawsuit" Stupid women, etc etc. Probably I'd still be in the ballpark of those thoughts today as well, until I watched this video.

In the first few minutes I decided, I will post my reply with a picture of a harp and the quote "American Citizens" under it. I thought you'd all been played for fools. But then I cottoned on (ok, I'm super slow....). I thought, whoa whoa, whats this 'caps' thingy talk, this has ruined my life!

Then I got mad, I'm still fuming here and I'm about 45 mins into the documentary. I realised that I am the harp, and I was played.
Well, I knew I was played - by my thieving lawyers, but this cap idea spread like a disease to my state of Victoria in Australia, by Jeff Kennet. By all accounts Mr Kennett was a great politician in our state. He got stuff done. He got things built, he literally threw dirt at journalist with a shovel with a huge smug look on his face at how awesome he is.
Anyway, the part that stabbed me was he brought the cap idea and put it into action. I still strangely like the guy, stupidly!

Long story short, I had a bad accident at work and ended up wheelchair bound with spinal damage and had to go to get my case heard.
I wanted and begged my lawyers to keep them paying me on weekly wages rather than a lump sum payout (my two options). But they insisted it would be better for me to get a lump sum as I could use it to generate easily enough to live off. Anyway, I was a young single dad (full time by myself alone) with 2 daughters at home and the legal teams worked my emotions until I finally accepted. Anyway, I was awarded the maximum allowable "cap" for my situation.

I signed my life away really. 1/8th of the money was gone the next day in legal fee's. A bill they could not put a finger on before hand.... Those scum forced my hand really. I was weak, ignorant and unlearned. A fool. I used the remaining money to buy a house for stability for my children. It is a nice house, but is in one of the most affordable states and my price range was first home buyers. It's certainly not fancy, but it's comfortable at least. The money that was left was ok for the first couple of years, I was just managing to pay bills and feed my kids with the interest it earned.
Very fast though interest rates dropped like stones, and now that little money left has had to be eaten away into to fill the gaps. That money was supposed to last me my life time. If I'm lucky I will make it just stretch until my girls are both adults (another 5 years away).
Then, I will be penniless. My payout also meant I am unable to get disability payments. What the heck am I going to do in five years time? I will be 41 years old in constant pain and agony on a day to day basis (i've been in agony now for over 10 years).

Surely being made unable to work for my lifetime and left in unbearable pain should not have been capped so harshly? My payout should have been followed by 6 zeros at least? I have about 280k left in the bank. A minimum wage downunder here is around 40k a year. It's not going to last much longer at all.


So, we come full circle to hot coffee. Her burns looked horrific, and this Tort Reform idea to promote 'caps' spread like those infected burns she suffered. She spilled that coffee on me, but we are merely the harps.

(Thanks op for posting this vid, I almost didn't watch it!)


(sorry all for bad spelling/grammar, I am a bad typist and am typing under the influence of madness right now!)

a reply to: Qumulys

She spilled that coffee on me, but we are merely the harps.

Well put.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: DupontDeux

Exactly why this is a great documentary. This was not a frivolous lawsuit imo and apparently the courts as well.

But Mcdes and the other PTB want you to believe it was,

Well, our views in this case are just inherently different then.

To me it boils down to this: If you buy something hot like coffee, be responsible enough to assume it is hot enough to burn you. Hot stuff might burn you. In my opinion everyone should have learned that lesson as a toddler.

Or to boil it down even more: I believe in personal responsibility.

The same thing happened to my grandmother. She was burnt down the front breast legs butt growing stomach with burger king coffee the lid was not on tight and when the drive through girl handed it too her the lid came off and went all over her burning 15% of her body she needed skin graphs and a life flight to the hospital she ended up getting 70k for body disfigurement scaring from the burns months and months of pain from skin grafting and rehab so she could walk again, I do not think 70k was near what she deserved for what that poor old lady went through but big corps can drag out a lawsuit for 10 years and medical bills must be paid or u can lose everything house cars everything

a reply to: DupontDeux

You are me. I had that case in my head the same as you, she was an idiotic old biddy who burnt herself through her own stupidity and was out to make a quick buck.

It just sounds so frivolous in nature that is why they used her to get the tort reform into place. I'm all for keeping out the ridiculous, outrageous cases where people make huge amounts of money for slipping over and grazing a knee. Stella suffored tramatic injuries, she needed to be compensated.

This movie has flipped my thinking 180 degrees. I was forced into arbitration as well in my case. My case I had to go to 5 different nuerologists all chosen by my employer to get assessed. It took years to get to arbitration, and even their own doctors put me at 80% permanently disabled from the accident. My accident could have been avoided, but they refused to spend money to repair a faulty industrial burner that was 10 meters high in a massive oven. Every few hours, we would have to climb a ladder up to it to reset it as it would no longer work from the control panel.
When I was up there resetting it, the ladder I was on snapped in half. It had never been safety inspected.

The company though was fully protected by these 'caps' and the fact I had to go to arbitration.

I'm all for stopping frivolous jackpot lawsuits, because when something tragic happens to someone you love, or yourself even, you hope there's something to help you continue on. You hope the jackpot seekers are kept away so justice can be done. But they used us all and took away justice and handed it firmly in the hands of employers.

All we need is common sense to throw out the stupid jackpot seekers, so that those with real life changing injuries have a legs to stand on. (I have none) :-/

Stella's coffee injuries were severe, in case anyone did not have the time to watch the documentary, this is what she suffered.


I'm not sure what figure should be payed for something like that, it would depend on recovery times. Is recovery possible? Will it affect the ability to work? etc. The tort reformists used this case against us all because it seems like it is purely Stella's stupidity is her own fault. McDonalds had 700 other cases of people being injured by the coffee. As a result, their coffee is 10 degree's cooler. The higher temp is thought to be a tool to make you sit in the restaurant longer and thus perhaps order something extra to eat while you wait. (I think that must be why, why else?)

Anyway, I feel like I've been emotionally railroaded. In the end, I got hit by the freight train of big business. I hope you get a chance to watch the whole documentary and think about how it was a changing force to take yet another right away from you. It may really change your mind :-)

Not exactly on topic, but there was a guy who bought a bicycle awhile back (maybe 30 years ago) who didn't have sense enough to use lights at night while riding it.

He got biffed by a car and sued the manufacturer of the bike for not plainly indicating that it was unsafe to ride around in the dark with no lights.

I learned this from a bike shop owner about 20 years ago when I asked why bicycles were so stupid expensive, which they are....Good ones anyway....

Tort reform is about nothing more than companies and corporations not wanting to be responsible for stupid people who don't know any better than to spill hot coffee in their lap while driving, or ride around on their bicycles in the dark.

The real issue will be how far it goes, most LLC's are not very accountable anyway, how much less accountability should a legal fiction be able to be unaccountable for?.

I wasn't aware that something that didn't really exist could be accountable for anything actual and real anyway.

Yah, it's a twisty convoluted ride we're on here, yah....

I argued a case of "taking" myself once, was doing pretty well and bought myself some time to get my affairs in order until the judge declared my presentments "frivolous" and dismissed the whole mess.

Everything I presented had precedent and was presented in the correct format, on a timely basis and fees were paid and all....I covered all the bases, it was nightmarish to learn what a convoluted mess the court systems are to navigate.

The courts can just wait you out until you run out of resources to fight the case, just like a war where you destroy the willingness or the ability of an adversary to fight.

These cases we are discussing here were taken up by a legal firm which possessed the resources to stay the course, cases like this are one reason people here are being denied the ability and option to gain the resources to fight with the bullies.

People are a liability, that's why they are being replaced by machines.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner
Stella (coffee lady) wasn't driving, it was twisted to make it sound that way. The car was parked, and she was in the passenger seat. A court ruled she was 20% at fault and Mcdonalds %80 fault. I think that's fair, and that should be taken into account when a judgement is made.

With the bicycle guy, he was certainly a moron. This is where is get's towards the frivolous stages. Did the bike have reflectors? It should have and that should be law, but I guess that depends on country/state. If the state says a bike should have lights or reflectors and the rider rode that bike without them, then it gets trickier. As a rider he should ensure it is following guidelines, so he's in the wrong. But, the shop that sold it is also to blame for selling an illegal vehicle, if he purchased it elsewhere then the burden of safety resides purely with the rider I guess and he's learnt Darwin is tapping him on the shoulder and pointing to the bin. So who should be forced to pay is not always cut and dry, it may have been 100% his fault, perhaps 90% is the shops fault? Without the case facts a true judgement cant be made really.

Each situation needs to be judged on merit in a case by case court in front of a public jury and let them decide where fault lies and how much is appropriate compensation. I just want common sense, and common justice when it's needed to weed the stupidity based claims out and not be pushed into closed room arbitration with a company bearable 'cap'.

any coffee freak like me knows coffee should never be anywhere near boiling hot as it
makes your coffee bitter


a reply to: Rob48

a reply to: Rob48

Responsibility should always fall upon the shoulders of others, especially if they have the resources to pay, whether they be a government (program) or an endowed citizen. Lawyers make it all possible.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

i remember this case well, and it effected my job at the time.
i use own a commercial/ industrial electric motor and equipment shop. we repaired and installed all types of electric equipment in plants,shops and restaurants.

at the time i had a contracts to do warranty work and installations with the three biggest commercial coffee brewer companies in the U.S. bunn, bloomfield, and cecilware and several food service/ beverage companies, like sara lee, s&d coffee, nestles and a few others.

after the suit, we had a surge in restaurants wanting us to come in and turn down their thermostats and set the temp for brewing down as low as possible. they didn't want to be sued. as time went on people started calling wanting us to come back and turn them up because customers were complaining that the coffee didn't taste right, cold or weak. another thing that happened is that everyone started putting up signs saying that the coffee is severed hot.
also as time passed it was forgotten all together.

on coffee machines the thermostats for optimum brewing should be turned to full on and the temperature in the tank should be about 200°F, and water coming out of the spray head in the brew funnel 195°F. believe it or not on tea brewers are just a tad bit higher, tanks are 205°F, and water coming out of the spray head in the brew funnel 200°F on the concentrate cycle.

here are some screen shots for bunn-o-matic trouble shooting for probable cause and remedy's for coffee and tea brewers.

coffee brewers



tea brewers



another thing most people don't realize, coffee sold in these place during peak time is not meant to sit very long, the warmer plates that the glass coffee pots sit on are not controlled by a thermostat. they are just a heating element and are about 100watts if i recall correctly. ever notice that a full pot is not as hot as a half a pot over a period of a hour or so, or have you ever went into a convince store and smelt brunt coffee and looked at the pot and see that it has evaporated/ boiled out and left a black goo in the bottom of the pot. also the thermal dispensers, and air pots are designed to keep the coffee hot and they do that very well. the ones that are square and sit on a warmer stand are basically like the warmers on the brewers themselves.

that's enough for about what i know, now for what i think.
the jury that gave the woman this decision were a bunch of idiot's, everybody knows that unless your drinking ice coffee, that it is served hot. she shouldn't have gotten a dime.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Impossible to tell really, but I'd say the coffee Stella was served was welllll over the 180-190(f) range. Did you see the burns she suffered I posted above? That is a horrific injury. In her case, a fair judgement I'd say is to cover all medical costs, and pain and suffering/loss of earnings. She was portrayed as seeking millions, but that was not really the case.

A jury found her 20% responsible for her injuries and Maccas 80%, I'd say that is a fair judgement. But this movie is more about how that case made us all ticked off at the 'silly old biddy spilling coffee on herself'. They worked us into seeking caps on lawsuits. It's great and all until your the one needing compensation then you find out you've been stung by the backlash whipped up around this case.

originally posted by: Qumulys
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Impossible to tell really, but I'd say the coffee Stella was served was welllll over the 180-190(f) range. Did you see the burns she suffered I posted above? That is a horrific injury. In her case, a fair judgement I'd say is to cover all medical costs, and pain and suffering/loss of earnings. She was portrayed as seeking millions, but that was not really the case.

A jury found her 20% responsible for her injuries and Maccas 80%, I'd say that is a fair judgement. But this movie is more about how that case made us all ticked off at the 'silly old biddy spilling coffee on herself'. They worked us into seeking caps on lawsuits. It's great and all until your the one needing compensation then you find out you've been stung by the backlash whipped up around this case.

i hate to inform you you can get second and third degree burns form water as low as Water at 160°F in less than 1/2 a second.

here is a chart from AO Smith a hot water heater mfg.


and if wearing sweat pants that would hold the temp against the skin longer it doesn't surprise me that she was burned as bad. also wasn't she a older lady, i think so.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

So, if 160(f) is enough for 2nd and 3rd degree burns on adult skin in 1/2 second why was McD's serving it at 180-190? Surely at that temp people are waiting 10 minutes before they can even drink it otherwise any spill would result in burns? Burnt lips, tongues, chins if dribbled etc? How often have you gone into a Maccas and had to go around a spill of coke on a table to the floor? Coffee surely is unenjoyable when it's that hot?

Anyway, this is not about the coffee thing. It's about how they used this case to wedge tort reform into the subconscious and then reality. It's from then that people who have suffered genuinely now run into a brick wall. That case in a way changed the course of my life.

DupontDeux above says

Or to boil it down even more: I believe in personal responsibility.

I wonder if they think that applies to myself? My company sent me to 5 of their own neurologists probably trying to get off scott free. They were all in agreement about my injuries though. They created a workplace high in demand for machinery to keep going on the cheap. The burner should have been repaired months earlier, and the stop-gap ladder we had to use for months was never safety checked or certified.
But I was ignorant and naive thinking my lawyers were looking out for me. They just wanted a quick 100k in their pockets, now I'm left with 80% lifelong disability with non stop pain 24/7 for over a decade so far, unemployable with no idea how to survive the next half of my life.
If that cap idea wasn't legislated my life would be much easier these days. Put it this way, if I spent my payout (supposedly to cover my lifelong loss of earnings) at the same rate as my previous earnings, it would have been all gone after 5 years. That's at a minimum wage type rate 40-50k as well.
I'm genuinely interested if that's my personal responsibility for the injury I suffered? Are you saying the company should hold no responsibilities for bad practice?

originally posted by: maryhinge
any coffee freak like me knows coffee should never be anywhere near boiling hot as it
makes your coffee bitter


a reply to: Rob48

Ummm... the secret to a good cup of coffee is boiling hot water, any less and it tastes nothing like coffee.
I know what I speak of in this arena, I drink more coffee in a day than you can all week.
True statement there.

Toward the OP, I have yet to watch the show but....
A mainstream media company tells a story and people buy it hook line and sinker?
HBO is owned by Time Warner, I'm guessing they want you to think a certain way.
But why?

originally posted by: alomaha
It's an excellent documentary. Things are usually different than they seem to be at the first glance. We shouldn't make judgments so quickly.

quick judgments are the norm. you see it every day here on ATS, and we are suppose to be a more enlightened group of people.

OK, I actually watched the entire video. For those still arguing about coffee, it's only one example - and actually, it's a bad example of a much larger issue. The arguments made in this piece are valid, but I would also like to see the other side too. There is certainly a need for tort reform to protect truly frivolous lawsuits, but there is also a very strong need to compensate those who truly were wronged. The coffee case can be defended on both sides. Malpractice, on the other hand, can get tricky. Medicine is an art and a science. Where does one draw the line?

At the end of the day, there needs to be more public involvement in understanding laws, government, commerce and more. This is difficult, but not insurmountable. Unfortunately,

Democratic self-government does not work, according to Plato, because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of state. They are not familiar enough with such things as economics, military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics. They are also not inclined to acquire such knowledge. The effort and self-discipline required for serious study is not something most people enjoy. In their ignorance they tend to vote for politicians who beguile them with appearances and nebulous talk, and they inevitably find themselves at the mercy of administrations and conditions over which they have no control because they do not understand what is happening around them. They are guided by unreliable emotions more than by careful analysis, and they are lured into adventurous wars and victimized by costly defeats that could have been entirely avoided.

- Plato: The Failure of Democracy

Since it involved her automobile, why didn't Stella make a claim against (the 'premiums' (funds) she's been putting aside for accident compensation) through her auto insurance provider?

I mean, while the getting was good, wasn't it? Litigious is a strong word?