Question

A lawsuit a few years ago made headlines worldwide when a McDonald's drive-through customer spilled a cup of scalding hot coffee on herself. Claiming the coffee was too hot to be safely consumed in a car, the badly burned 80-year-old woman won $2.9 million in court. (The judge later reduced the award to $640,000.) McDonald's claimed the product was served to the correct specifications and was of proper quality. Further, the cup read "Caution - Contents May Be Hot." McDonald's coffee, at 180 degrees, is substantially hotter (by corporate rule) than typical restaurant coffee, despite hundreds of coffee-scalding complaints in the past 10 years. Similar court cases, incidentally, resulted in smaller verdicts, but again in favor of the plaintiffs. For example, Motor City Bagel Shop was sued for a spilled cup of coffee by a drive-through patron, and Starbucks by a customer who spilled coffee on her own ankle.

Are McDonald's, Motor City, and Starbucks at fault in situations such as these? How do quality and ethics enter into these cases?

Answer 1

Yes. The drive through customer is different from the dining in customers in a way that he /she would consume the coffee on the go, while car still in motion. Due to this particular state of consumption environment, there are more chances of coffee spilling on him /her. It makes it obligatory for the serving company to take this factor in account,and keep the coffee temperature at such a level that a lapse does not cost too dear, while not compromising with the hot coffee experience. This might be subjective in nature, depending on different opinions, but still it is not as difficult to find out the right termperature at which the coffee must be served to taste good, while not being too hot to cause a burn. If the companies don't do this, they are compromising on the quality of experience of their customers, and need more to do on customer focus. However, ethically, the responsibility does not entirely lie with the company only. The customer, knowing that the coffee might cause the burns, should have exercised more caution while consuming it in the car, or simply avoided such item which was potentially harmful, particularly on a potholed road or during peak  traffic hours where frequent braking is a norm. The courts, while delivering the verdict, should also place the responsibility for negligence on users also, because an absolutely negligent customer might transfer all blame on the company and might go on to win millions of dollars, misusing the system. This is something grossly unfair.