Hetta said:Why in America is anyone having to boil water to 'purify' it? I don't boil my drinking water. Do you?
Vylo said: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.
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.
Urban Legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonalds 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
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.
The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees.
If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
And people actually think that Starbucks is popular because of the temperature at which it serves its coffee? <eye roll>
Why am I not surprised to see CATO angry at this.
"Big business never do wrong, only filthy commoners"
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.
andy b said: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 don't know that anyone believes that.
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’s, because they serve their coffee hotter than McDonald’s served it to Stella Liebeck
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.I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
That's not what this decision said. You're literally putting words in the judges mouth. That makes your remarks incredible.
Crudo89 said: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.