Dunkin' Donuts Sued Over Hot Cider Spill

[Hetta]

Why in America is anyone having to boil water to 'purify' it? I don't boil my drinking water. Do you?

 

[Kirito]

Why in America is anyone having to boil water to 'purify' it? I don't boil my drinking water. Do you?

Exactly. If Dunkin' Donuts is going to serve unreasonably hot cider because they need to purify their water, they shouldn't be using impure water in the first place. Purified water's not hard to come by, especially for a multi-million dollar company.

 

[Vylo]

To rewind and give perspective on the McDonald's incident and its relation to this one. The reason the suit went through and was successful wasn't simply because they made their coffee hot. It was the fact that so many people were suffering serious burns from their coffee, due to it being unreasonably hot, and McDonald's did not correct this and lower the temperature. They settled many cases out of court, but when this woman pressed a suit that simply asked them to cover the medical bills, they turned it down, and the case blew up when the courts saw the pattern.

In order for this woman to have a case it has to be shown that the cider was served at unreasonable temperatures, and for it to have any kind of impact akin to the Mcdonald's case, it would need to be shown that Dunkin Donuts was neglecting to correct a systemic problem with their beverages.

It should also be noted that in the McDonald's case the judge found the woman partially responsible for her own injuries, as "hot beverage between legs = bad" should be common sense. It was not common sense though, to assume that in the event her foolish actions spilled the beverage, she would receive severe burns within a second.

 

[Kirito]

To rewind and give perspective on the McDonald's incident and its relation to this one. The reason the suit went through and was successful wasn't simply because they made their coffee hot. It was the fact that so many people were suffering serious burns from their coffee, due to it being unreasonably hot, and McDonald's did not correct this and lower the temperature. They settled many cases out of court, but when this woman pressed a suit that simply asked them to cover the medical bills, they turned it down, and the case blew up when the courts saw the pattern. In order for this woman to have a case it has to be shown that the cider was served at unreasonable temperatures, and for it to have any kind of impact akin to the Mcdonald's case, it would need to be shown that Dunkin Donuts was neglecting to correct a systemic problem with their beverages. It should also be noted that in the McDonald's case the judge found the woman partially responsible for her own injuries, as "hot beverage between legs = bad" should be common sense. It was not common sense though, to assume that in the event her foolish actions spilled the beverage, she would receive severe burns within a second.

Thank you. This is helpful information.

I do think that a major factor in this case should be the influence of the McDonalds case. I think that the cider must have been unreasonably hot due to the severity of the woman's burns. As for McDonalds' failure to correct the heat of their coffee, I think that sets a precedent for this case. Dunkin' Donuts should have evaluated the heat at which they serve their coffee/cider when the McDonalds case reached a conclusion.

 

[Vylo]

Thank you. This is helpful information.

I do think that a major factor in this case should be the influence of the McDonalds case. I think that the cider must have been unreasonably hot due to the severity of the woman's burns. As for McDonalds' failure to correct the heat of their coffee, I think that sets a precedent for this case. Dunkin' Donuts should have evaluated the heat at which they serve their coffee/cider when the McDonalds case reached a conclusion.

I was always fascinated by this case, especially since my immediate reaction was the common "this woman is an idiot". It wasn't until I read the details of what was going on that I realized why the court hammered Mcdonald's. They were serving 190 degree coffee, which is insane. You can't even drink coffee until it is down to at least 145, and even then you might mildly scald your tongue.

 

[Hetta]

To rewind and give perspective on the McDonald's incident and its relation to this one. The reason the suit went through and was successful wasn't simply because they made their coffee hot. It was the fact that so many people were suffering serious burns from their coffee, due to it being unreasonably hot, and McDonald's did not correct this and lower the temperature. They settled many cases out of court, but when this woman pressed a suit that simply asked them to cover the medical bills, they turned it down, and the case blew up when the courts saw the pattern.

In order for this woman to have a case it has to be shown that the cider was served at unreasonable temperatures, and for it to have any kind of impact akin to the Mcdonald's case, it would need to be shown that Dunkin Donuts was neglecting to correct a systemic problem with their beverages.

It should also be noted that in the McDonald's case the judge found the woman partially responsible for her own injuries, as "hot beverage between legs = bad" should be common sense. It was not common sense though, to assume that in the event her foolish actions spilled the beverage, she would receive severe burns within a second.

Yes, this is something that I was told at the time and had forgotten. Thank you for posting this.

 

[Forest Wolf]

In all likelihood this case will be thrown out.
Dunkin Donuts isn't responsible for this womans gross negligence. And the courts have said as much in other cases by throwing such claims out.

Urban Legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case by Ted Frank on October 20, 2005:
(Sic)...Thirteen courts have reported opinions looking at product-liability/failure-to-warn claims alleging that coffee was “unreasonably dangerous” and the provider was thus liable when the plaintiff spilled coffee on him- or herself. Twelve courts correctly threw the case out.

This story will sound awfully similar to this one and this one: Dunkin' Donuts is getting burned with a hot coffee, er, cider lawsuit, after a New Jersey woman says the drink spilled in her lap, leaving her with second- and third-degree burns, the Star-Ledger reports. Jennifer Fragoso, 24, says she was sitting in her car in the Belleville, NJ, franchise's parking lot when the lid came off her hot apple cider and the beverage fell over.

Dunkin' Donuts Sued Over Hot Cider Spill - Jennifer Fragoso sues NJ location, claims permanent scarring

 

[Hetta]

And people actually think that Starbucks is popular because of the temperature at which it serves its coffee? <eye roll>

 

[Vylo]

In all likelihood this case will be thrown out.
Dunkin Donuts isn't responsible for this womans gross negligence. And the courts have said as much in other cases by throwing such claims out.

Why am I not surprised to see CATO angry at this.

"Big business never do wrong, only filthy commoners"

EDIT:

I also like how they outright lie on their site, like how they say:

The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees.

When it actually says:

If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[Forest Wolf]

And people actually think that Starbucks is popular because of the temperature at which it serves its coffee? <eye roll>

I don't know that anyone believes that. However, Starbucks serves their coffee at a higher temperature today than what McDonald's did when the Stella Liebeck action made the news.

And from the article I linked in my reply: The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees; another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees.

If restaurants follow that NCA recommendation then it is up to the consumer to heed the fact that if they like hot beverages they should take the proper precautions when handling them.

Should a restaurant that serves hot soup be sued because a patron that ordered a bowl burns their mouth after immediately taking a tablespoon full into their mouth?
I'd think not. It's a matter of common sense and responsibility for one's actions after knowingly ordering something that is presumed to be a risk if handled improperly.

 

[Forest Wolf]

Why am I not surprised to see CATO angry at this.

"Big business never do wrong, only filthy commoners"

Adding your personal diatribe for CATO does not alter the facts of this case nor is it relevant.

Excerpt - ' Lectric Law Library:

The Actual Facts About - The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case




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.



No one will ever know the final ending to this case.



The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. © 1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California

 

[Vylo]

What you posted there backs up what I said about them finding her partially at fault.

Thing is that McDonalds was indeed neglectful. They were serving coffee and a temperature they knew to be hazardous and unnecessary.

 

[Forest Wolf]

What you posted there backs up what I said about them finding her partially at fault.

Thing is that McDonalds was indeed neglectful. They were serving coffee and a temperature they knew to be hazardous and unnecessary.

That's not what this decision said. You're literally putting words in the judges mouth. That makes your remarks incredible.

 

[andy b]

lack of common sense is rewarded, layers get rich.jobs are put at risk and insurance costs for the honest go up.If anyone reading this post is skint why not sue a cake shop for getting fat or sue a pub for getting drunk,trip over a kerb,slip on a floor say £10000 worth of fishing equipment was robbed out of your garage even though you cant tie a knot , imaginary whiplash thats a good one the list is endless,Im going to write a book QUIT YOUR JOB AND GET RICH BEING AN IDIOT WHY THE HONEST SLOG THERE GUTS OUT

 

[Kirito]

lack of common sense is rewarded, layers get rich.jobs are put at risk and insurance costs for the honest go up.If anyone reading this post is skint why not sue a cake shop for getting fat or sue a pub for getting drunk,trip over a kerb,slip on a floor say £10000 worth of fishing equipment was robbed out of your garage even though you cant tie a knot , imaginary whiplash thats a good one the list is endless,Im going to write a book QUIT YOUR JOB AND GET RICH BEING AN IDIOT WHY THE HONEST SLOG THERE GUTS OUT

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

 

[Hetta]

I don't know that anyone believes that.

That's what it says in the article that you linked.

people like hot coffee, and today Starbucks has gone from a local shop to a dominant national chain, despite prices several times higher than McDonald&#8217;s, because they serve their coffee hotter than McDonald&#8217;s served it to Stella Liebeck

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

I think his point is that there are hazards all around us and in everything we do and consume. Potentially leading to a lawsuit anytime someone gets hurt out of their own ignorance.

If I cut myself with my Leatherman knife because I was using it irresponsibly I wouldn't think that I should sue Leatherman because my knife was sharp. Knives are supposed to be sharp and it is up to me to use them responsibly.

Coffee (or hot cider) is hot. If you didn't know that it could burn you, well... that's your fault not Folgers' or McDonald's or Dunkin Donuts'. Yours and no one else.

I'm sure next time, this woman will exercise a bit more caution when handling hot beverages.

 

[Vylo]

That's not what this decision said. You're literally putting words in the judges mouth. That makes your remarks incredible.

This was the case made by the plaintiff and apparently the jury (the jury decides, not the judge) that it was appropriate.

 

[Kirito]

I think his point is that there are hazards all around us and in everything we do and consume. Potentially leading to a lawsuit anytime someone gets hurt out of their own ignorance. If I cut myself with my Leatherman knife because I was using it irresponsibly I wouldn't think that I should sue Leatherman because my knife was sharp. Knives are supposed to be sharp and it is up to me to use them responsibly. Coffee (or hot cider) is hot. If you didn't know that it could burn you, well... that's your fault not Folgers' or McDonald's or Dunkin Donuts'. Yours and no one else. I'm sure next time, this woman will exercise a bit more caution when handling hot beverages.

The main point I want to make is that coffee or cider served at a temperature capable of causing third degree can cause serious injury through no fault of the person harmed. It just so happened that this woman handled her cider irresponsibly, increasing the likelihood of injury. Of course, much of the fault lies with the woman, but I just think the cider shouldn't have been as hot as it was.

For this reason, I certainly don't think the woman deserves much compensation. I think the main conclusion I'd like out of this case is for Dunkin' Donuts to serve its cider at a safer temperature.

 

[andy b]

The main point I want to make is that coffee or cider served at a temperature capable of causing third degree can cause serious injury through no fault of the person harmed. It just so happened that this woman handled her cider irresponsibly, increasing the likelihood of injury. Of course, much of the fault lies with the woman, but I just think the cider shouldn't have been as hot as it was.

For this reason, I certainly don't think the woman deserves much compensation. I think the main conclusion I'd like out of this case is for Dunkin' Donuts to serve its cider at a safer temperature.

you have to ask who hands out driving licenses to people like this,maybe there should be a drive through test aspect when applying for a licence. when buying hot liquids from a drive through do you

a) place them in the cupholder
b) place between your legs
c) hand hot beverage to young child in baby seat
d) balance on head