Woman Burned by McDonald's Hot Coffee, Then the News Media

[zipplewrath]

16. Action or responsibility?

I'm not actually as militant on this case as many. I think McDonalds actually lost the case because of they way they reacted to it. It implied that they were aware that they were in trouble and seemed to be afraid to change anything for fear of admitting responsibility.

They received hundreds of reports out of millions of cups sold.

I'm not sure what seatbelts have to do with anything, but I wouldn't hold the manufacturer responsible for a car made without them, until after they were mandated.

There are reasons for serving coffee quite hot, and I've mentioned a few before. And they sold ALOT of coffee, so they had reason to believe their customers wanted it that way. They are a very customer focused company and research greatly what influences buying patterns. The cup wasn't flimsy until the customer removed the lid. It was the removal of the lid in a dangerous situation that led directly to the accident. If the lids on, no way that much coffee gets spilled.

Yes, the jury did render an opinion, after the fact, that the coffee should have been served cooler. That was information not available to McDonalds at the time of the sale and manufacture. If not for the fact that it was jury, and not a legislature, and for the existence of the "known or should have known" standard, it would qualify as an ex post facto law, which is strictly prohibited by the US Constitution.

As I say, I'm not as militant as many (including yourself near as I can tell) about this case. McDonalds behavior is hard to understand, but really do you think it was their intent to injure their customers, or were they attempting to increase sales by producing a popular product? I think they let the lawyers do too much of their thinking, or else they probably could have easily started handling this in a vastly different manner, up to including serving the coffee cooler, or at least as an option. But the flip side is that because I don't believe they were trying to injure their customers (there was no direct profit motive for them to do so) I see far more of an ex post facto angle to this. It pits the wants and desires of one set of customers against another and places companies, not regulatory bodies (much less legislatures), in the position of sorting out the conflict. If they get it wrong, in the eyes of a jury, they lose.