McDonald's law suit, what was your opinion then and now?

Recently people have been posting about law suits and it reminded me of one of the most painful ones I've ever heard of: The McDonald's coffee law suit. Literally painful. Mass media was paid off by the large companies to change the scenario and get people on the side of McDonald's.

I was wondering what you've heard about the case and if your opinion is changed after reading the truth:


And seeing the woman's actual burns:



Most Helpful Girl

  • I used to think this was a silly lawsuit, but it's true: the coffee was hotter than it should've been. I feel bad for the woman. Even if she made a mistake and spilled her coffee, she didn't deserve the 3rd degree burns.


What Guys Said 3

  • The woman's burns are irrelevant. Of course hot coffee will cause burns. The case should be centered around who is at fault.

    I still side with McDonalds in this case. Think about it like this. If someone bought a cheeseburger while in a hurry to get to work then stuffed the cheeseburger in their mouth and ended up choking, is it McDonald's fault for making cheeseburgers too much to chew? Should they have a warning label all of their food that says "chew multiple times before swallowing"? Give me a break. People need to use some common sense.

    • They sell their coffee at a temperature that causes 3rd degree burns! Your example and this case are completely different. Its not s temperature used in regular coffee makers and the women wasn't in a hurry either way. All she wanted was enough to cover her medical expenses which included skin grafting. How about McDonald's not sell their coffee at a temperature that actually damages their customers? This could have been prevented.

    • Show All
    • No, cause it was my dumbass who spilled the coffee on myself. not their fault at all.

    • $11,000 in what, 1994? That's a bit fabricated. Even today you can get that surgery done for $600-700 dollars in India.

      For me, I wouldn't have spilled coffee on my lap in the first place. If I was stupid enough to do that, I wouldn't get burned that badly since younger skin is more resilient than older skin, which is what made this case so eye opening.

  • Coffee is hot. If you spill it on yourself you will get burned. It's the nature of hot beverages. The woman was at fault. She was burned badly because she spilled ht coffee on her crotch while wearing thick sweat pants. How is that the fault of McDonald's? They were guilty of nothing more than selling her just what she requested.

    This is a classic example of our overly litigious society and the result is that we all pay more for our products and services because some people are not capable of discerning who is truly at fault for something.

    Your argument seems to be that "the least McDonald's could do was pay for her injuries". I don't buy that argument when they were not at fault. Am I missing something?

  • As bad as the burns are, I think every one has sympathy for the poor woman. However, she should not have put the coffee between her legs. It is clearly an unsafe thing to do. Most people know better and she should have as well. Considering how hot the coffee was it would have been hard to hold, it would have burned through the cup

    When I get coffee that hot, it clearly can burn so I put it in a holder and let it cool


What Girls Said 1

  • People need to learn some personality responsibility

    How the f*** is it McDonald's fault? They can only have so many warnings on a cup holder before you have to question the stupidity of people.

    Darwin award candidate. Its too bad she didn't die cause then it'd be natural selection at best