Red Bull Sucessfully sued for not giving customers 'Wings'

[Symphonic]

case itself alongside other similar cases.

McDonalds offered a miniscule amount for her medical bills, it was to be regarded as a polite 'fuck off and learn how to drink coffee' payment, and not indicative of any guilt on their part - corporations do it all the time as it's cheaper to give out a few quid than have their legal team spend too much time on cases that have no merit. McDonald's had no obligation to pay anything for her medical bills from their point of view, as they believed it should have been her responsibility to ensure that she didn't spill it and cause the damage, which she failed to do.

The Jury only found the woman who filed the lawsuit to be 20% at fault. So, McDonalds was 80% at fault for giving coffee that is 190 degrees hot, in a styrofoam cup. She wasn't even driving the car, and the car was stopped when she went to put in her cream. She held the cup between her legs when she went to open it and if anyone has ever taken a lid off a styrofoam cup knows that if there is ANY pressure on the sides, it essentially collapses. Unfortunate for her, because the super scalding coffee got onto her pants and so it stayed stuck to her skin. Anyway, a lot of people think she was simply making a frivolous case against McDonalds, but it wasn't frivolous. She really got messed up because of it, and McDonalds has made some changes since then to prevent future incidents like that. Because it was mostly their fault.

[Melkandor]

The Jury only found the woman who filed the lawsuit to be 20% at fault. So, McDonalds was 80% at fault for giving coffee that is 190 degrees hot, in a styrofoam cup. She wasn't even driving the car, and the car was stopped when she went to put in her cream. She held the cup between her legs when she went to open it and if anyone has ever taken a lid off a styrofoam cup knows that if there is ANY pressure on the sides, it essentially collapses. Unfortunate for her, because the super scalding coffee got onto her pants and so it stayed stuck to her skin. Anyway, a lot of people think she was simply making a frivolous case against McDonalds, but it wasn't frivolous. She really got messed up because of it, and McDonalds has made some changes since then to prevent future incidents like that. Because it was mostly their fault.

Well said. I mean if McDonald's felt like they were in the right still, they would still be selling 190 degree coffee.

[Aquinan]

Anything I want to say about this will get me an infraction unfortunately.

[apepi]

You know when. I was a kid I thought red bull was alcohol, I mean how can you believe those shitty commercials with out being drunk?

[Kalis]

The Jury only found the woman who filed the lawsuit to be 20% at fault. So, McDonalds was 80% at fault for giving coffee that is 190 degrees hot, in a styrofoam cup. She wasn't even driving the car, and the car was stopped when she went to put in her cream. She held the cup between her legs when she went to open it and if anyone has ever taken a lid off a styrofoam cup knows that if there is ANY pressure on the sides, it essentially collapses. Unfortunate for her, because the super scalding coffee got onto her pants and so it stayed stuck to her skin. Anyway, a lot of people think she was simply making a frivolous case against McDonalds, but it wasn't frivolous. She really got messed up because of it, and McDonalds has made some changes since then to prevent future incidents like that. Because it was mostly their fault.

The issue is the bolded part. She fucked up by taking the lid off and weakening the structural strength of the cup, so why is McDonald's liable for her fuck up?

You know coffee is hot, I know it, every reasonable person knows it...except, according to this judgement, you, me and everyone else are too stupid to know that hot coffee is going to be hot. That's why the ruling was poor and has been rejected in numerous other similar cases, as the law shouldn't assume we are gibbering idiots.

There is nothing wrong with selling dangerous products if the customer can be reasonably expected to know they are going to be dangerous, and a hot beverage can reasonably be expected to be dangerous, it's why we automatically take precautions when we receive a hot drink.

Yes she got badly burnt, yes the ability of McDonald's to pay was greater than hers, but a legal system should not be based on what Robin Hood would do.

- - - Updated - - -

Well said. I mean if McDonald's felt like they were in the right still, they would still be selling 190 degree coffee.

That's not true at all.

[Vanyali]

You know coffee is hot, I know it, every reasonable person knows it...except, according to this judgement, you, me and everyone else are too stupid to know that hot coffee is going to be hot. That's why the ruling was poor and has been rejected in numerous other similar cases, as the law shouldn't assume we are gibbering idiots.

You miss the part where they were told it was too hot in previous cases.


"During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

[...]

He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

[...]

that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

[..]

The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

[...]

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful."


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm



"McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;
McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;"


https://www.ttla.com/index.cfm?pg=Mc...offeeCaseFacts



Beyond that, taking off the lid is fairly common. It's how you add sugar and cream. It's not some outlandish thing that she did for the fuck of it.

[babalou1]

The issue is the bolded part. She fucked up by taking the lid off and weakening the structural strength of the cup, so why is McDonald's liable for her fuck up?

You know coffee is hot, I know it, every reasonable person knows it...except, according to this judgement, you, me and everyone else are too stupid to know that hot coffee is going to be hot. That's why the ruling was poor and has been rejected in numerous other similar cases, as the law shouldn't assume we are gibbering idiots.

It wasnt about just being "hot". It was about being far to hot for consumption.

McD lost for multiple reasons and the amount paid was due to several factors. One being "McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."

Another is that McD had settled for other such claims and KNEW that the coffee was to hot, FOR 10 YEARS. They didnt care because "An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year." They had it well and above a suitable temperature because by the time most got to work, it would be cool enough to drink.

The only reason this made headlines was because of the amount and again, it was the Jury that decided the amount and even that was reduced by 80% by the Judge.

[Deleted]

Wow... I only have one word for this... ''America''

[Symphonic]

It wasnt about just being "hot". It was about being far to hot for consumption.

McD lost for multiple reasons and the amount paid was due to several factors. One being "McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."

Another is that McD had settled for other such claims and KNEW that the coffee was to hot, FOR 10 YEARS. They didnt care because "An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year." They had it well and above a suitable temperature because by the time most got to work, it would be cool enough to drink.

The only reason this made headlines was because of the amount and again, it was the Jury that decided the amount and even that was reduced by 80% by the Judge.

Plus, people think she got millions out of the lawsuit when in fact, the jury reduced it later from 2.7 million to 640,000, but McDonalds appealed and settled out of court for something below 600,000, but the public doesn't know how much. The original price was determined because of the amount mcdonalds makes in 1 day from selling coffee.

[PickleballAce]

Wow... I only have one word for this... ''America''

Jelly that we're smart enough to get easy money, m8?

[Kalis]

It wasnt about just being "hot". It was about being far to hot for consumption.

McD lost for multiple reasons and the amount paid was due to several factors. One being "McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat."

Another is that McD had settled for other such claims and KNEW that the coffee was to hot, FOR 10 YEARS. They didnt care because "An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year." They had it well and above a suitable temperature because by the time most got to work, it would be cool enough to drink.

The only reason this made headlines was because of the amount and again, it was the Jury that decided the amount and even that was reduced by 80% by the Judge.

All coffee is too hot for immediate consumption, that's standard in both commercial and domestic production. The coffee was not known to be 'too hot' for 10 years, it was known to be dangerous, but selling something dangerous isn't illegal if the expectation of a reasonable purchaser is that the item may be dangerous. If you aren't a reasonable purchaser, then the law should not bend to accomodate you, as it's an unreasonable expectation.

Beyond that, taking off the lid is fairly common. It's how you add sugar and cream. It's not some outlandish thing that she did for the fuck of it.

Taking the lid off a hot drink, without taking reasonable precautions to ensure the drink doesn't spill, is what she was held to be responsible for. McDonald's wasn't blamed for that.

The rest of what you have said has been covered.

[Amsden]

So can I sue Gatorade since my sweat is still clear? Or Skittles since they don't actually taste like a rainbow? Though a candy that tastes like water would be kind of boring.

[AeneasBK]

All coffee is too hot for immediate consumption, that's standard in both commercial and domestic production.

Just chipping in as someone who has a 'professional' opinion on this - no, not really. Certainly a latté is consumable immediately (yes it will be hot, but it won't burn your mouth) from Costa or Starbucks. Maybe the filter coffee is a bit hotter, but certainly no where NEAR 190 degrees, thats insane.

[Keile]

McDonalds doesn't even make their coffee hot anymore, mainly because of lawsuits. I actually had mine spill on me not long ago (they didn't put the lid on properly, the side you drink from wasn't snapped on tight) when I took a sip and it spilled out all over me. My chest was red for an hour or so, but it faded. I told them about it, and they basically shrugged me off.....

But no harm was done (after about an hour the redness faded, though it was itchy for the remainder of the day. By the next day it was as if it never happened. The only downside was I was late to class that morning....)so I let it slide...this time.

Anyway, as for the Red Bull case it was not about the wings. If you research the suit it is actually about Red Bulls claims to be stronger than coffee, and there is no scientific proof supporting these claims. Since they have no real proof that it is as potent as they claim, it is considered false advertising.

Though...I can attest, it is stronger than coffee. I drink coffee like water and it doesn't do much, but if I drink a Red Bull I'm up all night.

So can I sue Gatorade since my sweat is still clear? Or Skittles since they don't actually taste like a rainbow? Though a candy that tastes like water would be kind of boring.

You mean a candy that tastes like LIGHT.

[Anonymitylol]

You might've heard where that woman successfully sued because she spilt hot coffee on her lap? East Texas. Smart lawyers struggle to get their cases moved there even if the thing they are suing over happened in Delaware.

If you look at the burns the coffee did, you would sue as well. The coffee was hotter than it should've been(Should not cause such burns). Go look into it more before you throw it around to prove a point when all it will do is disprove.

[Kalis]

Just chipping in as someone who has a 'professional' opinion on this - no, not really. Certainly a latté is consumable immediately (yes it will be hot, but it won't burn your mouth) from Costa or Starbucks. Maybe the filter coffee is a bit hotter, but certainly no where NEAR 190 degrees, thats insane.

Anything over 65ºC/150ºF is capable of causing what is known as deep thickness burns, equivalent of that suffered in the case of Liebeck, "...the Automatic Vending Association recommend a temperature for hot drinks of not less than 70 C (160ºF) and that an English catering textbook advises that coffee be served at 82 C (180ºF)."

Quoted text is from a similar English case, in which McDonald's was found to be not negligent. The Farenheit temperatures are my approximations.

[Puremallace]

Post is mislabeled. Lawsuit was over false advertising about the effects red bull would have on consumers. The example given is the amount of caffeine in a cup of coffee compared to Red Bull, but Red bull charges more. It is false advertising.

Red bull has claimed it would give you more energy then average coffee

[bishopfubu]

I drink Redbull all the time but I won't take money for something I know is bs. I'm gonna start a lawsuit against Geico because those cave man ads were bs. Cave men can't get insurance. It's not THAT easy. Seriously tho, I hate things like this.

[Spectral]

Great example of why legal professions are held in contempt.

[Tradewind]

Acceptance of this compensation should be conditional. You should be mandated to wear a sign that says "I am a fucking idiot" for 6 months.