It happened again, only this time with hot chocolate.
http://consumerist.com/2010/08/mcdonald ... pills.html
did this woman not think to check the lid before handing it over? did she not think to read the passage that says: 'caution: HOT'?
I mean come on already. Geez.
Remember the McD's coffee suit?
Sorry, this is kinda off topic.
I keep on reading the subject, and imagining someone either in a Mcdonalds coffee cup Halloween costume, or wearing one of those hats with the two cans and the straw, only with Mcd coffee instead of beer... \"coffee suit.\"
On topic: Lothar once summarized the first lawsuit pretty well, and it made sense that McD would have to pay up after you know all of the details.
That is all.
I keep on reading the subject, and imagining someone either in a Mcdonalds coffee cup Halloween costume, or wearing one of those hats with the two cans and the straw, only with Mcd coffee instead of beer... \"coffee suit.\"
On topic: Lothar once summarized the first lawsuit pretty well, and it made sense that McD would have to pay up after you know all of the details.
That is all.
well, thing is once they hand the coffee to you, it's wholly your responsibility. If you spill it, that's your fault. Something that really should have been taught to both of them by age three.
Personal responsibility really should be brought back, instead of trying to find a way to make a quick buck.
Personal responsibility really should be brought back, instead of trying to find a way to make a quick buck.
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
Re:
The key to the first suit is that McDonalds was making their takeout coffee dangerously hot (way too hot to drink right away, and hotter than other places served their coffee) despite having had previous incidents where too-hot coffee was burning people, and despite having been warned by various safety experts and consultants.snoopy wrote:Lothar once summarized the first lawsuit pretty well, and it made sense that McD would have to pay up after you know all of the details.
It was only a matter of time before somebody got burned very badly. Which is exactly what happened. We're not talking "red skin, put some aloe on it" burns; we're talking "requires surgery, need tissue grafts" burns.
I don't know if the current suit is anything like the previous one. If it is, then McDonalds will likely have to pay out another huge settlement, as it would demonstrate gross negligence. If not, then it'll be dismissed soon enough. So I'm content to sit back and let the courts figure it out.
Re:
What's ironic to me is that both coffee and milk start to burn once you get them over 75 degrees centigrade (167 deg. F). They were therefore deliberately making crap coffee! Having drunk their coffee before, this explains a lot.Lothar wrote:The key to the first suit is that McDonalds was making their takeout coffee dangerously hot (way too hot to drink right away, and hotter than other places served their coffee) despite having had previous incidents where too-hot coffee was burning people, and despite having been warned by various safety experts and consultants.snoopy wrote:Lothar once summarized the first lawsuit pretty well, and it made sense that McD would have to pay up after you know all of the details.
