1423
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1423 points (98.5% liked)
Today I Learned
17773 readers
556 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Both can be true.
They could be, but they aren't. The woman literally had her labia fused together from the burn and just wanted them to pay for her fucking surgery.
She didn't seek out that much money. She only wanted money to cover her medical costs. If you feel upset about the amount then you should blame the jury. They're the ones who came up with the amount. (Which the judge lowered.)
It's not about the money. Its about her being as dumb and as irresponsible as mcds.
Except she fucking wasn't, you twat. Stop victim blaming.
Fuck you shithead. There are no victims in civil suits.
The woman who received serious burns from McDonald's overheated coffee was a victim, sparky.
There can absolutely be victims in civil suits. A company isn't a person so it's not like they can go out and mug someone, often the only way to get justice against a company is in civil court.
Well actually there are some formats of a company that will be seen as a person from the perspective of the law
I’m very familiar with this case because of Randy Cassingham’s True Stella Awards (sadly discontinued). Here’s a few facts -
Those facts are not in dispute, but, instead of quietly paying her medical bills (which is all she wanted) and moving on, McDonald’s PR decided to publicly smear her and paint her as “DuH, sHe OrDeReD hOt CoFfEe ThEn BuRnEd HeRsElF. DuRr HuRr….”
She absolutely was the victim, but McDonald’s turned her pain into a punchline. All the way to the point that most average people today still believe that it was a frivolous lawsuit, when she deserved what she got and more because of her severe pain.
Also, if there were no victims in civil suits, there would be no civil suits. That’s the entire point, one party has been aggrieved, and they want compensation from the other party.
So she could have gotten out and she spilled it on herself.
Still her own fault.
Yes, if you read the trial results, you will see that the jury did find her 20% at fault, but found McDonald’s 80% at fault. It doesn’t matter where she was, the point is that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and wasn’t even consumable. If I buy cup of coffee, I expect it to be drinkable, this was not. Further, McDonald’s KNEW that their coffee was too hot, had received numerous complaints, yet did nothing. That’s what puts them 80% in the wrong - when they’re aware of a dangerous problem and they do nothing to fix it or mitigate the issue. They are negligent. Period, hard stop.
Others have already very kindly explained how you're completely, totally wrong, so I'll just add:
Neener neener, you're a stupid asshat and nobody likes you :D
That's true nobody likes degenerate corporate bootlickers
Right. Her getting third degree burns means she wasn't a victim.
How was she dumb? How was she irresponsible?
Gee I spilled hot coffee in my lap....let me just do nothing and sit in it.
Ur labia don't get fused cuz coffee gets splashed on them.
I take it you've never seen or experienced burns from boiling water -- second degree burns happen nearly instantly, with third degree burns taking seconds.
The coffee they served her was near boiling.
They do if the coffee is as hot as McDonald's had it.
The temperature it was at can cause third degree burns in three seconds. Please tell me how an elderly woman buckled in a car can get all of the scalding coffee off of herself in under three seconds.
Did you know that liquid at 150F can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds? This was 200F, 133% hotter than liquid that can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. The woman, who it would behoove you to recall was elderly, was sitting down, buckled in, wearing jeans.
Please, explain to me how, in this scenario, you would suggest that an elderly woman remove her now-scalding jeans in 2 seconds or less.
You can't, because it's impossible. Now fuck off, you complete piece of human garbage. Go suck corporate dick on reddit.
I drink my coffee above 150 wtf r u smoking???
I'm smoking science and facts. Sorry you're too stupid to understand them. One source: https://dcs.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/Child-Abuse-Tips-Scald-Injuries.pdf
Another source, citing 3 seconds at 140F: https://antiscald.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=15
Another source, a graph showing time to burn at liquid temperatures ranging from 130F to boiling: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_lrg.gif
Edit, hey! Just for fun, here's one specifically talking about the optimal drinking temperature for hot beverages. It only briefly mentions that the usual serving temp of coffee (~180F) can easily and quickly cause significant scalding, but it goes on to show that the optimal - in terms of customer satisfaction, taste, and safety - is a cool ~140F. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305417907002550?via%3Dihub
I hope you spill it all over yourself everyday.
Classy.
They do if the coffee is just that damn hot which it was.
NSFL: https://www.google.com/search?q=stella+liebeck+burns&sca_esv=566856875&tbm=isch&sxsrf=AM9HkKmPBVZwzxW-bL6SS-UapPZ4BYy9aQ:1695197259357&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjigd_z3biBAxXQO3AKHd7ZAT8Q_AUIBigB&biw=360&bih=653
Yep cuz she spilled it on herself trying to put cream in and then she sat in it for like a minute. No way some coffee just poured on ur arm is hot enough to instantly fuse flesh .
Mcd should have paid the initial settlement I agree but the vast damage from this lady's experience was a result of her own actions.
That's what people can't get over.
I get how a jury could get it wrong and pay her for her suffering. And I pity her this experience What I dont get is why people completely absolve her of any responsibility here when her own actions were the first contributing factors.
Even if the coffee wasn't "too hot". Her own actions still would have left her burned. That is a fact.
Burn damage occurs in less than a second. Go dip your hand in a pot of boiling water as fast as you can if you want to try it, I'm sure you'll be just fine.
Burn damage happens near-instantly. Holy shit this is what happens when education isn't done properly.
The jury also heard evidence how there had been multiple serious injuries before this lady and yet McD intentionally refused to lower the temperature as the bean counters realized they saved money keeping it hot... people couldn't drink very much of it in restaurant as they ate their breakfast and therfore didn't ask for refills. Even though they had paid out claims previously, it was cheaper to keep it hot and keep paying them out despite injuries. The jury thus decided on significant punitive damages to motivate McD to do the right thing.
I mean fair. I'm not trying to side with mcds here, really because I do believe they deserve blame, but I also believe it's not black and white. They don't deserve all of the blame here.
If an employee had spilled on her then yes but she literally did it to herself.
Consider however that she wasn't served this coffee in a store, but in a car. The possibility of spilling the drink is significantly more likely, especially since she wasn't given a lid. This isn't the woman's fault at all, it was a horrible accident just waiting to happen. It's like if a roller rink covered the floor in grease and periodically had spike pits.
I did a bunch of chemistry lab classes in college, I think I had one each year actually. We regularly heated liquids and worked with concentrated acids. If we had spilled a liquid this hot on ourselves in a similar volume, we would have seen similar burns. It would take longer than 2 seconds to rip off a glove (which is probably fused to your skin very quickly anyway) or disrobe our labcoats. The coffee being spilled on us like this would have given us incredibly severe burns too, and that's with PPE and emergency safety equipment right there. It would take far, far longer to get to one one of the showers and activate it even.
And this is in a controlled lab environment! There was no heightened risk of spills because of being in a moving vehicle nor having an open cup.
And guess what, neither did the jury. They assigned 20% of fault to her.
But you seem to not know this, yet keep on victim blaming.
Sounds like she does deserve 20% as you just admitted. Oh noes there goes ur high horse.
You're the one with the high horse from your hubris, mate.
So far you've strawmanned, goalpost moved, and ad-hom'd.
Got any more sophistry you'd like to trot out?