Parents Sue Monster Energy
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 112,963
Likes: 150
From: Doh!!
Given the facts and generally accepted assumptions about the case, Monster can easily be seen as blameless by most non-corporation/capitalism condemners.
I'd like to clarify on the McDonald's coffee case a little bit more though for those who say McDonald's is 100% blameless. Assuming you've read the evidence presented in the case, you'd see the extraordinary number of burn claims, industry standard for coffee temperature, and most importantly, the temperature at which human skin almost immediately suffers third degree burns. Naysayers argue that the warning sign indicating the coffee is hot and common sense would suggest the consumer should be careful. This is a unique case though, as a warning sign indicating coffee is hot would actually be common sense to people that it's not a good idea to gulp it, but sipping will be okay. Why? Because it's a product made for immediate consumption into the body. So why would a reputable restaurant serve you something to eat/drink that, according to doctors, will cause you to require skin graft surgery should it be held on your skin for 2-7 seconds?
Let's create another scenario where the burn victim wasn't doing something most consider a bad idea. Let's say I'm inside the store. I get my coffee and take it to the condiments station to add cream. The cup is stable on the table but the lid was just a little tighter than usual, which caused me to exert a little too much force. I spill a tiny bit of coffee on my hand, and it takes me 4 seconds to get napkins and begin wiping because it's not in immediate reach. I'm certain that my hand will be a little red and tender to touch and will acknowledge it was my fault and go about my day, because I understood the coffee to be hot. Should I have gotten 1990s McDonald's coffee (unbeknownst to the general consumer at the time that it was health endangering hot) , the 4 seconds it took for me to wipe my hand would have resulted in me being hospitalized and being prepped for surgery that would cost me $20,000. Would the naysayers still deem me 100% at fault given the re-evaluation of common sense?
One more quick scenario. You order soup at a restaurant. The waitress brings the soup over and tells you to be careful because it's hot. That was your explicit warning. You nod to acknowledge. Using common sense, you scoop some into your spoon and blow on it and proceed to take a sip. This soup was served at a dangerous 200 degrees though, and blowing on it lowered it to 180, temperature able to cause third degree burns. By your logic, because you were told it was hot, it's totally your fault. Common sense works both ways.
btw, I'm not hating on McDonald's. McDonald's is my go-to restaurant when I don't have anything in particular I want to eat. I do try to eat in moderation though, as subjective as that may be, which actually shouldn't be. It should be based off dietary experts' consensus of average human tolerances. The only subjective part is the plus or minus on the average based on that particular consumer's physiology and experience with the product.
I'd like to clarify on the McDonald's coffee case a little bit more though for those who say McDonald's is 100% blameless. Assuming you've read the evidence presented in the case, you'd see the extraordinary number of burn claims, industry standard for coffee temperature, and most importantly, the temperature at which human skin almost immediately suffers third degree burns. Naysayers argue that the warning sign indicating the coffee is hot and common sense would suggest the consumer should be careful. This is a unique case though, as a warning sign indicating coffee is hot would actually be common sense to people that it's not a good idea to gulp it, but sipping will be okay. Why? Because it's a product made for immediate consumption into the body. So why would a reputable restaurant serve you something to eat/drink that, according to doctors, will cause you to require skin graft surgery should it be held on your skin for 2-7 seconds?
Let's create another scenario where the burn victim wasn't doing something most consider a bad idea. Let's say I'm inside the store. I get my coffee and take it to the condiments station to add cream. The cup is stable on the table but the lid was just a little tighter than usual, which caused me to exert a little too much force. I spill a tiny bit of coffee on my hand, and it takes me 4 seconds to get napkins and begin wiping because it's not in immediate reach. I'm certain that my hand will be a little red and tender to touch and will acknowledge it was my fault and go about my day, because I understood the coffee to be hot. Should I have gotten 1990s McDonald's coffee (unbeknownst to the general consumer at the time that it was health endangering hot) , the 4 seconds it took for me to wipe my hand would have resulted in me being hospitalized and being prepped for surgery that would cost me $20,000. Would the naysayers still deem me 100% at fault given the re-evaluation of common sense?
One more quick scenario. You order soup at a restaurant. The waitress brings the soup over and tells you to be careful because it's hot. That was your explicit warning. You nod to acknowledge. Using common sense, you scoop some into your spoon and blow on it and proceed to take a sip. This soup was served at a dangerous 200 degrees though, and blowing on it lowered it to 180, temperature able to cause third degree burns. By your logic, because you were told it was hot, it's totally your fault. Common sense works both ways.
btw, I'm not hating on McDonald's. McDonald's is my go-to restaurant when I don't have anything in particular I want to eat. I do try to eat in moderation though, as subjective as that may be, which actually shouldn't be. It should be based off dietary experts' consensus of average human tolerances. The only subjective part is the plus or minus on the average based on that particular consumer's physiology and experience with the product.
However, coffee, for the purpose of this argument, will not cause 3rd degree burn if splashed on your hand. I have had larger amount of hotter water splashed/spilled on my hand before (any of us here have boiling water when we pour it into our cup-o-noodles). You quickly wipe your hand on your cloth and suffer some erythema of the skin for a couple of hours. Even if I don't wipe my hand, most of the water runs down my hand to the ground. The mass of water needed to cause severe burn does not stay on your hand for 4 seconds; gravity will cause 95-99% of it to fall to the ground. The quantity of heat transfer will be insufficient to cause hospitalization.
dont believe me? open your water bottle and pour it onto your hand to see how much water stay on your hand. Be sure to do this over the sink (advisory b/c I don't want to be sued for people falling on a wet floor - common sense isn't so common these days).
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 4,252
Likes: 3
From: SOMD
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 112,963
Likes: 150
From: Doh!!
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
the plaintiff spilled coffee onto her lap b/c she tried to drive with a hot cup of coffee b/t her legs and the hot water soak into her clothing. This circumstance was unforeseen.
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 4,252
Likes: 3
From: SOMD
Originally Posted by mzurk93' timestamp='1353012279' post='22153503
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
the plaintiff spilled coffee onto her lap b/c she tried to drive with a hot cup of coffee b/t her legs and the hot water soak into her clothing. This circumstance was unforeseen.
As far as the case with Monster Energy and the unfortunate death of the young girl, I find it strange that she did not know about the disease prior to this event, but then again I am unfamiliar with her condition. Would she have seen or felt strange symptoms from drinking any other caffeinated drink?
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
Originally Posted by mzurk93' timestamp='1353012279' post='22153503
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: Elmsford, NY
Originally Posted by S2020' timestamp='1353025792' post='22153937
[quote name='mzurk93' timestamp='1353012279' post='22153503']
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
[/quote]
You may have degrees fahrenheit mixed up with degrees celcius.
Water boils at 212 degrees fahrenheit, which is 100 degrees celcius.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,605
Likes: 4
From: Irvine, California
Originally Posted by AlX Boi' timestamp='1352937751' post='22151785
Given the facts and generally accepted assumptions about the case, Monster can easily be seen as blameless by most non-corporation/capitalism condemners.
I'd like to clarify on the McDonald's coffee case a little bit more though for those who say McDonald's is 100% blameless. Assuming you've read the evidence presented in the case, you'd see the extraordinary number of burn claims, industry standard for coffee temperature, and most importantly, the temperature at which human skin almost immediately suffers third degree burns. Naysayers argue that the warning sign indicating the coffee is hot and common sense would suggest the consumer should be careful. This is a unique case though, as a warning sign indicating coffee is hot would actually be common sense to people that it's not a good idea to gulp it, but sipping will be okay. Why? Because it's a product made for immediate consumption into the body. So why would a reputable restaurant serve you something to eat/drink that, according to doctors, will cause you to require skin graft surgery should it be held on your skin for 2-7 seconds?
Let's create another scenario where the burn victim wasn't doing something most consider a bad idea. Let's say I'm inside the store. I get my coffee and take it to the condiments station to add cream. The cup is stable on the table but the lid was just a little tighter than usual, which caused me to exert a little too much force. I spill a tiny bit of coffee on my hand, and it takes me 4 seconds to get napkins and begin wiping because it's not in immediate reach. I'm certain that my hand will be a little red and tender to touch and will acknowledge it was my fault and go about my day, because I understood the coffee to be hot. Should I have gotten 1990s McDonald's coffee (unbeknownst to the general consumer at the time that it was health endangering hot) , the 4 seconds it took for me to wipe my hand would have resulted in me being hospitalized and being prepped for surgery that would cost me $20,000. Would the naysayers still deem me 100% at fault given the re-evaluation of common sense?
One more quick scenario. You order soup at a restaurant. The waitress brings the soup over and tells you to be careful because it's hot. That was your explicit warning. You nod to acknowledge. Using common sense, you scoop some into your spoon and blow on it and proceed to take a sip. This soup was served at a dangerous 200 degrees though, and blowing on it lowered it to 180, temperature able to cause third degree burns. By your logic, because you were told it was hot, it's totally your fault. Common sense works both ways.
btw, I'm not hating on McDonald's. McDonald's is my go-to restaurant when I don't have anything in particular I want to eat. I do try to eat in moderation though, as subjective as that may be, which actually shouldn't be. It should be based off dietary experts' consensus of average human tolerances. The only subjective part is the plus or minus on the average based on that particular consumer's physiology and experience with the product.
I'd like to clarify on the McDonald's coffee case a little bit more though for those who say McDonald's is 100% blameless. Assuming you've read the evidence presented in the case, you'd see the extraordinary number of burn claims, industry standard for coffee temperature, and most importantly, the temperature at which human skin almost immediately suffers third degree burns. Naysayers argue that the warning sign indicating the coffee is hot and common sense would suggest the consumer should be careful. This is a unique case though, as a warning sign indicating coffee is hot would actually be common sense to people that it's not a good idea to gulp it, but sipping will be okay. Why? Because it's a product made for immediate consumption into the body. So why would a reputable restaurant serve you something to eat/drink that, according to doctors, will cause you to require skin graft surgery should it be held on your skin for 2-7 seconds?
Let's create another scenario where the burn victim wasn't doing something most consider a bad idea. Let's say I'm inside the store. I get my coffee and take it to the condiments station to add cream. The cup is stable on the table but the lid was just a little tighter than usual, which caused me to exert a little too much force. I spill a tiny bit of coffee on my hand, and it takes me 4 seconds to get napkins and begin wiping because it's not in immediate reach. I'm certain that my hand will be a little red and tender to touch and will acknowledge it was my fault and go about my day, because I understood the coffee to be hot. Should I have gotten 1990s McDonald's coffee (unbeknownst to the general consumer at the time that it was health endangering hot) , the 4 seconds it took for me to wipe my hand would have resulted in me being hospitalized and being prepped for surgery that would cost me $20,000. Would the naysayers still deem me 100% at fault given the re-evaluation of common sense?
One more quick scenario. You order soup at a restaurant. The waitress brings the soup over and tells you to be careful because it's hot. That was your explicit warning. You nod to acknowledge. Using common sense, you scoop some into your spoon and blow on it and proceed to take a sip. This soup was served at a dangerous 200 degrees though, and blowing on it lowered it to 180, temperature able to cause third degree burns. By your logic, because you were told it was hot, it's totally your fault. Common sense works both ways.
btw, I'm not hating on McDonald's. McDonald's is my go-to restaurant when I don't have anything in particular I want to eat. I do try to eat in moderation though, as subjective as that may be, which actually shouldn't be. It should be based off dietary experts' consensus of average human tolerances. The only subjective part is the plus or minus on the average based on that particular consumer's physiology and experience with the product.
However, coffee, for the purpose of this argument, will not cause 3rd degree burn if splashed on your hand. I have had larger amount of hotter water splashed/spilled on my hand before (any of us here have boiling water when we pour it into our cup-o-noodles). You quickly wipe your hand on your cloth and suffer some erythema of the skin for a couple of hours. Even if I don't wipe my hand, most of the water runs down my hand to the ground. The mass of water needed to cause severe burn does not stay on your hand for 4 seconds; gravity will cause 95-99% of it to fall to the ground. The quantity of heat transfer will be insufficient to cause hospitalization.
dont believe me? open your water bottle and pour it onto your hand to see how much water stay on your hand. Be sure to do this over the sink (advisory b/c I don't want to be sued for people falling on a wet floor - common sense isn't so common these days).
Originally Posted by mzurk93' timestamp='1353012279' post='22153503
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
the plaintiff spilled coffee onto her lap b/c she tried to drive with a hot cup of coffee b/t her legs and the hot water soak into her clothing. This circumstance was unforeseen.
Originally Posted by rich85tpi' timestamp='1353076528' post='22154860
[quote name='whiteflash' timestamp='1353073833' post='22154758']
My reply was that we all have had boiling water accidentally splashed onto our hands at some point in our life. I have never seen a 3rd degree burn from this. Even if a whole cup was pour on your hand, still not third degree burn.
[quote name='mzurk93' timestamp='1353012279' post='22153503']
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
^ wasnt she sitting? And the coffee spilled into her lap and soaked into her clothes? I think by then it was able to cause some lasting damage to her skin.
Water on you hand is one thing. But sitting in your lab and inbetween you legs, hot liquid can cause some real damage.
[/quote]
You may have degrees fahrenheit mixed up with degrees celcius.
Water boils at 212 degrees fahrenheit, which is 100 degrees celcius.
[/quote]
My premise is based solely on expert testimony relating to the case: "Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn."
The testimony didn't clarify on the conditions to this type of burn would occur, whether it be a milliliter to the skin or if the skin should be fully submerged in the liquid for the 2 to 7 seconds. Assuming it's the later, it still does not defeat the idea surrounding my scenarios, which is that an infinite number of generally faultless accidents could occur (we are discounting the fact that the plaintiff's actions that caused the spill was in fact #1x10^1298347124312978 of good ideas when traveling on the road), but given McD's gross negligence with the serving temperature of its coffee, after having had substantial complaints and law suits regarding such in conjunction with the widely available scientific knowledge of hot liquids and human physiology, a fault could be placed.
I'll create an exaggerated scenario that is probable: Customer buys a 1990 McD coffee inside. Customer walks up stairs but careless trips, squeezing the coffee cup causing the lid to pop off. The coffee flies into the air as the customer falls flat onto the stairs. The entire contents of the coffee the spills all over customer, who happens to have clothing that doesn't cover very much skin. Napkins are 8 seconds away. According to the testimony, third degree burns should result. We know that if the coffee was served at the recommended safety level of 155 degrees Fahrenheit, most would consider this a faultless accident (in the most fair assessment). A lot of youtube-commentating people would still blame the customer, so what if the coffee instead spilled on another customer right next to her? So the point is, McD's action/inaction of serving dangerously hot coffee for the purposes of immediate consumption put customers in harms way.
One last thing if you're a coffee lover. Optimal brewing temperature for the best resulting coffee is accepted at 200 degrees F. That's different from serving temperature, which should at a safe human consumption temperature.
Site Moderator
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 13,625
Likes: 372
From: Seattle WA
She consumed a huge amount of caffeine that even for a healthy adult could cause a negative effect. I find it hard to believe she was ignorant of her condition as it was stated in the article. Either way she made a stupid choice but it was her choice. Monster energy didn't hold her down and force feed her 2 massive cans of monster.
I drink rockstars a day (I know it is terrible) but I sure as hell don't down them one after the other and they are the normal cans. Look at this picture.
She drank 2 of the one on the right while most people drink the one on the left.
I drink rockstars a day (I know it is terrible) but I sure as hell don't down them one after the other and they are the normal cans. Look at this picture.
She drank 2 of the one on the right while most people drink the one on the left.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Scot
Off-topic Talk
21
Jan 7, 2004 02:35 PM