Stay in Touch
Get sneak previews of special offers & upcoming events delivered to your inbox.
-
Blogs & Forums
-
Forums
-
Blogs
-
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
@dooBdoo wrote:
The McDonald's coffee incident was serious and important, and not frivolous, by the way:
Excerpt:
"Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns [the worst type of burns] over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800...
...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... "
read more:
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case
In your opinion this was NOT frivolous, @dooBdoo??? Wow. I "rest" my case! 
"After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns [the worst type of burns] over 16 percent of her body,..."
Whose fault it was then? McDonald's? Who placed this cup "securely" between this lady's knees while removing the lid?
Was it NOT obvious to anyone that paper cup full of hot liquied MAY tip over?
Had she NEVER in her life tasted freshly poured coffee from a cup and had NO idea - it was HOT, before she sqeezed in between her knees in a moving car, while removing a lid from a full cup of hot coffeee.......
PLEASE! Give me a break about this case being "serious and important, and not frivolous"! She may had suffered serious injuries from that hot coffee, but HOW this was MacDonald's fault?
What do you suggest, they should of done? Serve COLD coffee instead?
I want my coffee hot! And promise to NEVER place hot coffee between my legs, opening a lid in a moving car!
So WHAT did the Goverment regulate on this matter? Or what COULD they regulate?
MacDonald ended up with printing that WARNING label on a paper cup, saying this coffee is hot, may cause burns and basically do not do idiotic things with hot coffee. End of story
sonechko wrote:
dooBdoo wrote:The McDonald's coffee incident was serious and important, and not frivolous, by the way:
Excerpt:
"Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns [the worst type of burns] over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800...
...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... "
read more:
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case
In your opinion this was NOT frivolous, @dooBdoo??? Wow. I "rest" my case!
"After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns [the worst type of burns] over 16 percent of her body,..."
Whose fault it was then? McDonald's? Who placed this cup "securely" between this lady's knees while removing the lid?
Was it NOT obvious to anyone that paper cup full of hot liquied MAY tip over?
Had she NEVER in her life tasted freshly poured coffee from a cup and had NO idea - it was HOT, before she sqeezed in between her knees in a moving car, while removing a lid from a full cup of hot coffeee.......
PLEASE! Give me a break about this case being "serious and important, and not frivolous"! She may had suffered serious injuries from that hot coffee, but HOW this was MacDonald's fault?
What do you suggest, they should of done? Serve COLD coffee instead?
I want my coffee hot! And promise to NEVER place hot coffee between my legs, opening a lid in a moving car!
So WHAT did the Goverment regulate on this matter? Or what COULD they regulate?
MacDonald ended up with printing that WARNING label on a paper cup, saying this coffee is hot, may cause burns and basically do not do idiotic things with hot coffee. End of story
All the details are available at the link I provided. (The car had stopped, by the way and it wasn't about cold vs. hot, the temp was quite high and caused third-degree burns, which is the worst you can have.) The documentary is very good, too.
The warning wasn't the only change made after the jury found McDonald's to be at fault. There were many more positive changes as a result of the suit and investigation, some important improvements and not just the change in labeling. I would encourage anyone interested in the facts to go to the link I posted.
It really was disturbing, in fact it wasn't a frivolous suit, and to me it helps illustrate the need for balance and care by all parties in these situations. In all situations, really. (eta: sorry for all the edits... I can't seem to type very well today!
)
@dooBdoo wrote:
@sonechko wrote:
@dooBdoo wrote:
The McDonald's coffee incident was serious and important, and not frivolous, by the way:
Excerpt:
"Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns [the worst type of burns] over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800...
...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... "
read more:
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case
In your opinion this was NOT frivolous, @dooBdoo??? Wow. I "rest" my case!
"After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns [the worst type of burns] over 16 percent of her body,..."
Whose fault it was then? McDonald's? Who placed this cup "securely" between this lady's knees while removing the lid?
Was it NOT obvious to anyone that paper cup full of hot liquied MAY tip over?
Had she NEVER in her life tasted freshly poured coffee from a cup and had NO idea - it was HOT, before she sqeezed in between her knees in a moving car, while removing a lid from a full cup of hot coffeee.......
PLEASE! Give me a break about this case being "serious and important, and not frivolous"! She may had suffered serious injuries from that hot coffee, but HOW this was MacDonald's fault?
What do you suggest, they should of done? Serve COLD coffee instead?
I want my coffee hot! And promise to NEVER place hot coffee between my legs, opening a lid in a moving car!
So WHAT did the Goverment regulate on this matter? Or what COULD they regulate?
MacDonald ended up with printing that WARNING label on a paper cup, saying this coffee is hot, may cause burns and basically do not do idiotic things with hot coffee. End of story
All the details are available at the link I provided. The documentary is very good, too. There were many more positive changes as a result of the suit and investigation, some important improvements and not just the change in labeling. It really was disturbing, in fact it wasn't a frivolous suit, and to me it helps illustrate the need for balance and care by all parties in these situations. In all situations, really. (eta: sorry for all the edits... I can't seem to type very well today!
Yes it WAS a frivolous suite, or else MacDonald would never got out of it with this nominal settlement amount. It was not a MacDonald's fault in any way, that lady placed a paper cup full of hot coffee between her legs in a car, moving or stopped does not matter, still while opening cup's lid.
It was totally and completely her own personal doing and thus - her own fault. The injuries she suffered can not be placed on MacDonald.
sonechko wrote:
dooBdoo wrote:
sonechko wrote:
dooBdoo wrote:
The McDonald's coffee incident was serious and important, and not frivolous, by the way:
Excerpt:
"Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns [the worst type of burns] over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.
Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800...
...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... "
read more:
http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=mcdonalds_case
In your opinion this was NOT frivolous, @dooBdoo??? Wow. I "rest" my case!
"After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns [the worst type of burns] over 16 percent of her body,..."
Whose fault it was then? McDonald's? Who placed this cup "securely" between this lady's knees while removing the lid?
Was it NOT obvious to anyone that paper cup full of hot liquied MAY tip over?
Had she NEVER in her life tasted freshly poured coffee from a cup and had NO idea - it was HOT, before she sqeezed in between her knees in a moving car, while removing a lid from a full cup of hot coffeee.......
PLEASE! Give me a break about this case being "serious and important, and not frivolous"! She may had suffered serious injuries from that hot coffee, but HOW this was MacDonald's fault?
What do you suggest, they should of done? Serve COLD coffee instead?
I want my coffee hot! And promise to NEVER place hot coffee between my legs, opening a lid in a moving car!
So WHAT did the Goverment regulate on this matter? Or what COULD they regulate?
MacDonald ended up with printing that WARNING label on a paper cup, saying this coffee is hot, may cause burns and basically do not do idiotic things with hot coffee. End of story
All the details are available at the link I provided. (The car had stopped, by the way and it wasn't about cold vs. hot, the temp was quite high and caused third-degree burns, which is the worst you can have.) The documentary is very good, too.
The warning wasn't the only change made after the jury found McDonald's to be at fault. There were many more positive changes as a result of the suit and investigation, some important improvements and not just the change in labeling. I would encourage anyone interested in the facts to go to the link I posted.
It really was disturbing, in fact it wasn't a frivolous suit, and to me it helps illustrate the need for balance and care by all parties in these situations. In all situations, really. (eta: sorry for all the edits... I can't seem to type very well today!
Yes it WAS a frivolous suite, or else MacDonald would never got out of it with this nominal settlement amount. It was not a MacDonald's fault in any way, that lady placed a paper cup full of hot coffee between her legs in a car, moving or stopped does not matter, still while opening cup's lid.
It was totally and completely her own personal doing and thus - her own fault. The injuries she suffered can not be placed on MacDonald.
There's no point in arguing the facts of the case which can be found online at my link or others.
I guess I could copy and paste the whole article here. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck 20% at fault and McDonald's at 80% at fault. McDonald's admitted the temp was too high ("McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler." "McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is 'not fit for consumption.'") and also admitted they were aware of the risk and that they had done nothing to correct the problem. It's a very compelling case, and well worth reading about for those interested in the details.
@HappyDaze! I think this one is a real thing! But I'll definitely check on specifically at MacDonalds, to make sure what was exact wording they printed out specifically for the people, who think their head is there to wear hats.
@millieshops wrote:@sonechkoWe have become a nation addicted to celebrity and emotion. Facts count for very little it seems.
As for the WEN - I'm sure there are those who had problems, but anyone who bothered to read the details about the complaints instead of just the headlines might have been able to go on enjoying their WEN as I have. Apparently, the majority of the complaints center around Sweet Almond Mint.
I did use that once some years back without problem, but I've decided not to test my luck. I just use other scents successfully.It's been over 7 years now and lots of WEN. I think I'm safe
@millieshops, I do agree it's hard sometimes to get us to look at facts and set our emotions aside. Part of that is human nature, I think. People feel passionate about things. In this case, to me it seems the FDA has no recourse but to investigate. But at the same time, if we look at the number of negative claims vs. the astronomical sales (and repeat sales, and long-term satisfied customers, at that), the percentage is awfully small. And as others have said, evidently WEN doesn't contain anything other products haven't used in the past or are using now. That makes me think it will be difficult, if not impossible, to identify a problem or remove any products from sale. As I said before, consumers need to research and do their own due diligence, since I don't know of any products in the world which are perfect or trouble-free.
Footer Navigation and Information
*You're signing up to receive QVC promotional email.
Manage Your Account
Find recent orders, do a return or exchange, create a Wish List & more.
Get More with QCard®
Enjoy 12+ VIP Savings Events a year (& more!).
Work with Us
Stay Connected
Download Our QVC Apps
This is Shopping Brought to Life.
Privacy StatementGeneral Terms of Use
QVC is not responsible for the availability, content, security, policies, or practices of the above referenced third-party linked sites nor liable for statements, claims, opinions, or representations contained therein. QVC's Privacy Statement does not apply to these third-party web sites.
© 1995-2025 QVC, Inc. All rights reserved. | QVC, Q and the Q logo are registered service marks of ER Marks, Inc. 888-345-5788