OT - How did we survive before watchgroups

Submitted by Blazefire on

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Diet/mcdonalds-threatened-lawsuit-marketing-toys-happy-meals/story?id=10982614

Welcome to my nightmare. I always, always, ALWAYS knew that one day "consumer advocacy" and "watchdog" groups would set upon the most pure things in the world in the name of protecting us, and today, it is true.

Evidently McDonald's is evil and is intentionally TRYING to make kids fat by offering happy meals with toys in them. You know, since so many 8 year olds drive themselves out to McD's when they want a little Nosh and fork over some cash.

Parents of America! If your kid is a lard-ass, there is somebody to blame, and it's not the goddamn golden arches! Go to hell and get yourselves AWAY from my freakin' childhood. A happy meal with a toy is something for the kid to beg for, and the parent to say "no".

A buncha freakin' zombies out there. Not dead, but definitely not alive. At least not if having an ounce of self respect is required.

Beavis

June 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^

Mo' Money, Mo' Problems, Biggie Smalls.

And speaking of biggie smalls, I bet that bastard loved himself happy meals as a kid. 

GIMMIE THE LOOT, GIMMIE THE LOOT. 

Paly33

June 22nd, 2010 at 4:32 PM ^

A watch group for terrible parenting!!!  Its ok to say "No" to your child, they will live.

My parents would taking me to McDonalds about once a month when I was a kid.  I always looked forward to that Happy Meal.  Leave the Happy Meals alone!!!!! 

Geaux_Blue

June 22nd, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^

where it didn't have to be some product child tested pos and instead had wood and exposed metal and you could run up the slide, which was made of reflective metal, and slip so as to chip your tooth and thus be awesome?

 

because my dentist doesn't believe in that world.

Sgt. Wolverine

June 22nd, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^

Mr. No-Fun "Expert" Man:
"It's not just a meal. It's the technique you're using to get kids to buy a meal..."

That's clever wording, but it's inaccurate.  McDonald's uses the toys to make the meals more appealing to kids, but they don't buy the meals -- the parents do.  If you're unhappy with what kids are eating, talk to the people dictating the kids' diets.

TrppWlbrnID

June 22nd, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^

fat people are still able to breed, they generally breed with other fat people, raising smaller fat people who will grow to be larger fat people and find other fat people to breed with.

there are many reasons for a population not to be fat, aesthetics is one and so is general healthiness.

MgoViper

June 22nd, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^

It was only a matter of time before some lazy and greedy person tried to go down this avenue. I hope they get nothing, and have to pay mcdonalds for THEIR poor choices. The world owes you nothing,  snap out of it people!

bjk

June 22nd, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^

in comments at this fine site before. It's been somewhat misrepresented in the boulevard press in order to ridicule the decision. There was a BP-like history of incidents and complaints overlooked for the sake of convenience and cost-cutting. The coffee was much closer to boiling than would be the case for something you intended to put in your mouth and it wasn't the first time someone had been hurt. Corporate behavior wasn't going to change away from endangering the public without a gesture in the direction of money. Money and force are the two things habitual offenders understand.

03 Blue 07

June 22nd, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^

Disclaimer: I'm a civil defense attorney. So it would come as no surprise I had always thought the McDonald's lawsuit was outrageous, the same as most people who heard about it on the news. However, I read an article about it in, I believe, the American Bar Association's journal or a similar journal (it may have actually been the one for Defense attorneys- I can't remember; I do not read nor subscribe to the Association for Trial Lawyers of America publication, as it is pretty plaintiff's attorney-centered and annoys me)  that actually laid out the facts of the case, and wasn't so appalled. If I recall correctly, the woman's flesh actually fell off of her body between her legs. The coffee was served at right around 190 degrees farenheit, with 212 being boiling. And she'd asked to settle her case for something like less than her actual medical bills- around $20k. It was also interesting that, among other things, the lid wasn't on properly. I guess my whole point is that the McDonald's Coffee Case is far more nuanced then the generally educated person thinks when it comes up. The jury awarded punitive damages amounting to about 2 days worth of coffee sales at McDonald's, with the "punitive" part being the fact that they'd known about it for years, and, I believe, internal documents produced in discovery showed that they'd decided it was worth it as a cost of doing business. Hence, the punitive damages, which totaled 2 or 3 million.

Oh, and I agree- the Happy Meal stuff is fucking absurd. Completely and utterly absurd.

Blazefire

June 22nd, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^

about that case, the more I've decided maybe there WAS something to it. I mean, I'm definitely anti stupid lawsuits, but it sounds like McD's was at least somewhat negligent in serving that.

That said: NEVER put anything hot between your legs, people. It's just a stupid idea and you should know better.

bjk

June 23rd, 2010 at 1:00 AM ^

and it turns out oldcityblue has done my work for me. From his linked source,

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. 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. . . . 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.

Also:

A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused. 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.

In the end:

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit. . . . The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public . . . .

After the fact, the corporate-friendly press has turned this into a PR victory for McDonald's and a talking point for those who hope to close the door to redress of grievances through the courts.

Blazefire

June 23rd, 2010 at 7:44 AM ^

Doesn't change the fact that that idiot woman, however valid her claims may have been regarding McD's negligence, still put HOT COFFEE between her legs while driving, and is pretty much the catalyst reason why today coffee cups are all marked "Danger: Hot!" and fireworks say "Do Not Aim at Face".

bjk

June 23rd, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^

Read the link:
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.)

bjk

June 23rd, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^

for the warning on coffee cups is the punitive reward caused by McDonald's settling 700 burn cases in ten years while maintaining their coffee at scalding temperatures and serving it to people purchasing it from a drive-through window.

oldcityblue

June 22nd, 2010 at 6:51 PM ^

..on our way to a game. My mom was driving and ordered a lg coffee. The drive thru guy dropped the cup by accident and as it fell, she tried to recover and catch. It mostly landed directly onto her chest/lap area. We spent the day in the emergency room as she had 2nd degree burns on her legs and mid section. 

My folks thought our culture was becoming too  litigious so they did nothing. McDonalds was forced to not serve near boiling coffee nearly a decade later. That one made sense.

maizenbluenc

June 23rd, 2010 at 7:37 AM ^

I will try very hard not to come across in a bad way here. First of all, my wife and 8 year old son managed to have a kitchen accident where he had his arm in the path of hot pasta water as she drained the pot in the sink resulting in second degree burns up most of his arm. [Edit: we did one thing wrong in response by the way: don't use ice on the burn, immerse it in cool water (which is hard if it is an entire arm).]

So I sympathise with the pain your mom suffered.

It seems to me that both the lawsuit case, and your mothers case sound like accidents. (The water has to be hot to make good coffee. Near boiling water is dangerous. The lid was loose in one case, and the drive thru attendant spilled the coffee in the other.)

Obviously, the speed at which people are served probably lead to both accidents. Mc Donalds has since decided to lower the temperature of coffee for safety reasons because of the lawsuit. But the punitive award of the case was outragious.

Some people may not agree with me, but I also applaud your parents for their response.

bjk

June 23rd, 2010 at 8:02 PM ^

McDonald's decision to lower the temperature of their coffee to the 150+ range and the punitive award are not a co-incidence. They settled 700+ cases in ten years and did nothing to prevent further injuries. And as we have seen above, the number of actual incidents is higher than that. Concerning the final size of the punitive reward, we don't know the final outcome of the case; it is a secret. This is to say, part of PR is keeping the public in the dark.