Had to google that. Have you been reading some medical journals?
Haha, no, someone mentioned it earlier in the thread
Johnson + Johnson fined £50m after Cancer death linked with Talcum powder
- Thread starter wez130
- Start date
Haha, no, someone mentioned it earlier in the thread
That particular case was lost by McDonalds because they heated the coffee to a higher temp than other outlets*, were well aware of the dangers at that temperature due to other instances, and more importantly their own internal reports showed there had been warnings about it that had been ignored due to the fact that they could get something like another 2-5 cups worth of usable drink out of a refill of the machine at that temperatures.
IIRC the memo's and reports included the something along the lines of a projected cost in compensation vs the extra profit that could be expected.
The courts, and more importantly Juries always tend to take a very dim view of companies ignoring safety advice, especially internally generated safety advice to increase profit.
*I think the industry standard was about 5c lower, which massively reduced the chances of a bad injury, but meant you got something like 2-3% drinkable coffee per pound of beans.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,233
- Location
- North East England
I think the appeal will see a different outcome.
Also why do woman rub talc in their lady parts
Also why do woman rub talc in their lady parts
Surely that cannot be factually correct?
She wasn't left with first degree burns because McDonalds were serving hot coffee. That's like saying she was left with burns because kettles boil water.
Surely that cannot be factually correct?
She wasn't left with first degree burns because McDonalds were serving hot coffee. That's like saying she was left with burns because kettles boil water.
IIRC she was left with first degree burns because every other chain (and most independent stores) selling coffee for take away purposes did so at a temperature that meant it didn't do the damage within seconds unless you could apply cold fluids or take clothing off.
McDonalds were proven to be well aware of the dangers of selling the coffee at the higher temperature, but decided that the cost of compensation claims was lower than the cost of serving the coffee at the standard temperature but having to change the beans slightly more often.
Basically had the same thing happened with virtually any other outlets coffee she would likely have had a painful scold/burn but nothing like as bad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,529
- Location
- ST4
I use Johnson's Baby Talc, but thankfully I don't have ovaries.
That's terrible. To actually commit to a course of action that knowingly will injure people because changing the beans more often was more expensive. Whoever is responsible for that decision should resign. Companies should not be putting profit before customer safety. I'll never go inside another McDonalds again. That kind of management mentality is something that needs to be addressed.
If you look into the details of the case, you'll find it's rather different to how you think it is.
MacDonalds were deliberately selling coffee at a very dangerous and utterly undrinkable temperature even after hundreds of injuries. The person (who didn't do anything unreasonable with the coffee) received third degree burns requiring extensive medical treatment and causing permanent scars, but they still only sued for their medical expenses.
It was served at a temperature of 180-190 Farenheit. Normal temperature at other places was about 150 Farenheit. Which is what MacDonalds uses now. Drinkable temperature is about 140 Farenheit.
Liquid at 180-190 Farenheit causes 3rd degree burns in as little as 2 seconds on more delicate skin (like that of an old person or the genitals of any person). Liquid at 150 Farenheit does not.
I'm using Farenheit because it's a USA case and they still use Farenheit for some reason.
While that certainly looks painful, and she has my sympathy for that, I still fail to see how that is McDonalds' fault?
What is the legal maximum temperature for a takeaway hot beverage?
How hot "should" a hot beverage be? Bearing in mind that a) the water needs to be at/near boiling to make tea/coffee, and b) when people order a hot beverage, they usually expect it to be... well... hot
I don't see how that image is evidence that McDonalds was negligent in any way*? All it proves is that she suffered serious burns.
What next - suing Tefal (the appliance manufacturer, not the forum member
* There may have been evidence to show this, however this photo isn't it, it's just an emotive image to make you think "oh this poor woman, she must be the victim".
The evidence was in the trial, which was a matter of public record. After more than 700 people were injured and after being repeatedly informed that the coffee was being served at a temperature far too high to be drinkable and posed a serious risk, it was negligent to continue doing it.
Yes, people expect a hot drink to be hot. They also expect it to be drinkable. Because it's a drink. Drinking liquid at 190 Farenheit will seriously injure you and might well kill you. People don't expect that from a drink.
People do expect boiling water to be... well...boiling. They don't expect a drink to be served just far enough from boiling to not be bubbling and they don't expect drinking a drink to cause major injury or death. Your comparison is not a valid one.
The jury found her 20% at fault for holding the coffee without sufficient caution while trying to remove the stuck lid. The picture is entirely relevant because it shows the part of the reason why MacDonalds was also found to be at fault - the coffee was served at a dangerously high temperature. The other part of the reason was that it was proven that MacDonalds knew that was true and deliberately carried on doing it despite knowing that it was highly unsafe to do so. Had the coffee been served at a drinkable temperature, she would not have been so severely injured and MacDonalds would not have been at fault.
Which is (sort of) fair enough.
Although I have to question how somebody managed to survive to the age of 79 without figuring out that hot things can burn you, and hot drinks can be hot, therefore it logically follows that hot drinks can burn you*
* Saying that, this is the same species that needs a warning on a packet of peanuts to let them know that the packet may contain nuts.**
** Incidentally, peanuts aren't actually nuts, so those warnings are somewhat misleading!
That particular warning is actually relevant and sensible.
Some people are allergic to nuts and are not allergic to peanuts because, as you rightly state, peanuts are not nuts. So it is relevant to warn people that (due to being processed and/or packaged in the same factory) a bag of peanuts might also contain some amount of nuts.
I find it odd that you question why someone might not "figure out" that a company would serve a drink at a temperature hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds, which is of course far too hot to be drunk. You know, rather than selling a drink that can be drunk without causing serious injury or death.
The burns she received were 3rd degree, not 1st degree. All layers of skin completely destroyed, burning extends into subcutaneous tissue.
Had to google that. Have you been reading some medical journals?
I like the inclusion of 'probably'
It's impossible to absolutely prove that something cannot possibly ever under any circumstances be a contributory factor in cancer, so they have to include 'probably'.
I've now edited the post as seeing DJs information on that case made me realise how misinformed I was.
Moral of the story don't trust newspapers reporting and recite as fact later on.
There's a good example of that problem on Skallagrim's channel on Youtube. He makes interesting videos on swords (and other things) and referred to a case in England recently in which someone used a sword in defence. Oddly anachronistic and therefore interesting. He made a comment about the ridiculous laws in the UK making self defence pretty much illegal. A day or so later he made another video apologising for the misinformation in the previous video and setting the record straight. He'd trusted media reporting and repeated it as if it was true. It wasn't until a fair few people commented on the video that he looked for the actual facts.
We now have the word 'clickbait', but it's far older than the web. 'readbait' doesn't really work as a word, though.