AS THE WORLD GONE COMPLETELY MAD OR WHAT ?

I was lost for words this afternoon when ordering a meal at the drivethrough KFC at Drakehouse Retail Park.

My wife and I ordered two take away meals but asked if we could substitute the fizzy drinks for two coffees instead.

Although polite the assistant explained that we couldn't have the coffees to take away since it was company policy to refuse such a request on health and safety grounds!

When I questioned this she explained that we could drink the coffees inside the premises but company policy would not allow us to take them away in case we caused ourselves injury with the hot liquid !

KFC didn't want to be sued if such circumstances occured.

I have never heards such rubbish in all my life -needless to say from now on we will be taking our business elsewhere.)


:rant: :rant:

Originally posted by mountainbike


I have never heards such rubbish in all my life -needless to say from now on we will be taking our business elsewhere.)


:rant: :rant:

But not your coffee:hihi:

Meh, I blame America... We in Europe seem to have adopted their policy of suing the collective asses off anyone and everybody for the slightest little mis-hap :rant:

That's why the likes of Injury Lawyers 4 U are so successful, despite the fact that I DESPISE that advert :rant:

Get out of your car and go inside and buy the meal, then carry it out yourself - that way they'll sell you the coffee.

I stopped using KFC in this country as the meals are small, overpriced and low quality, when compared to the choices the US outlets give.

Too much of the menu is built around burgers for my liking - they do fries, whereas in the US it's wedges. The side salads are very limited and poor. When you buy chicken pieces you have no choice but to take legs/wings, but US outlets let you choose between breast/wing OR leg/thigh .... I hate leg/thigh (except on women) ... but it's take or leave it here.

Originally posted by darip
Get out of your car and go inside and buy the meal, then carry it out yourself - that way they'll sell you the coffee.

No, it's still take away coffee even if you do it that way.. You have to buy the coffee and sup it on the premises, that way they know you haven't spilled it and burned yourself...

Stupid idea but it covers them in the event of any unfortunate "accidents".

What I mean is buy the meal to take out to car ... then go back and buy a coffee to drink inside ... but walk out of the door with it, they can hardly stop you.

seems a little pointless having a drive through service though don't you think !

keep smiling

It's probably got something to do with the woman in America who sued McDonalds a few years back.

She drove off with her takeaway coffee. The coffee fell on her. She got scalded. She sued McDonalds for the coffee being too hot. She won.

What can you say?

For the same reason, most places now wont warm bottled milk for babies, in case they make it too hot and the customer tries to sue them. Its all down to the USAs 'compensation culture' filtering over here.

Originally posted by slh73
For the same reason, most places now wont warm bottled milk for babies, in case they make it too hot and the customer tries to sue them. Its all down to the USAs 'compensation culture' filtering over here.

Yeah, the Americans decided "ooh looky that, something bad happened in that shop, let's sue their collective asses and get rich", and like a muppet, Blair has allowed this culture to be imported over here :rant:

And yes I know Tony Blair isn't directly responsible, I just couldn't resist the opportunity to slag Blair off as I dislike the guy and think he's a muppet.

Originally posted by beanpod
It's probably got something to do with the woman in America who sued McDonalds a few years back.

She drove off with her takeaway coffee. The coffee fell on her. She got scalded. She sued McDonalds for the coffee being too hot. She won.

What can you say?

But on appeal she lost.

Originally posted by max
But on appeal she lost.
Not true, in late 1994 the two parties came to a confidential settlement believed to amount to a $640,000 payment for Stella Liebeck. Of course, as it was confidential this cannot be confirmed but as the appeal was never ruled upon by the court she certainly didn't lose the appeal.

What is true is that the original $2.7m punitive damages awarded by the jury was was reduced to $480,000 by the judge. There was also $200,000 compensatory damages awarded.

Originally posted by InvalidUser
Not true, in late 1994 the two parties came to a confidential settlement believed to amount to a $640,000 payment for Stella Liebeck. Of course, as it was confidential this cannot be confirmed but as the appeal was never ruled upon by the court she certainly didn't lose.

What is true is that the original $2.7m punitive damages awarded by the jury was was reduced to $480,000 by the judge. There was also $200,000 compensatory damages awarded.

Thanks for that. The end result being that, no doubt, she ended with nothing after the lawyers, insurers and medical industry had finished.

Originally posted by Rich
No, it's still take away coffee even if you do it that way.. You have to buy the coffee and sup it on the premises, that way they know you haven't spilled it and burned yourself...

Stupid idea but it covers them in the event of any unfortunate "accidents".

what are they going to do, lock the door and refuse to let you out?

Originally posted by max
Thanks for that. The end result being that, no doubt, she ended with nothiing after the lawyers, insurers and medical industry had finished.
Quite possible, it is unknown if her costs were paid :)

The problem was that McDonalds were aware that the abnormally high temperature of their coffee was capable of causing severe burns and had previously paid off victims. Despite this they continued to serve it at the drive-thru.

I'm no fan of the compensation culture but I think McDonalds had this one coming.

Originally posted by InvalidUser
Quite possible, it is unknown if her costs were paid :)

The problem was that McDonalds were aware that the abnormally high temperature of their coffee was capable of causing severe burns and had previously paid off victims. Despite this they continued to serve it at the drive-thru.

I'm no fan of the compensation culture but I think McDonalds had this one coming.

Having just done in-depth research it shows that over 10 years they settled 700 cases which given the amount of coffee they sell was that for every 24,000,000 customers one didn't know how to open hot coffee. Plus, the temperature at which they served the coffee was that recommended by the National Coffee Association:

Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."

I think the old lady had it coming too.

Quite, I think it was those 700 cases that convinced the jury that McDonalds knew there was a significant risk and what they did amounted to negligence.

The fact that coffee should be served scalding hot for the best taste doesn't mean that it's a safe thing to do in a drive-thru environment. McDonalds knew this but chose to continue regardless.

If the coffee was cooler then the limit of the compensation might be a dry cleaning bill or a car valet. The coffee was hot enough to cause severe burns and McDonalds knew it.

Originally posted by mountainbike

needless to say from now on we will be taking our business elsewhere


i bet you £50 that you dont!!!!

Originally posted by coopster1974
i bet you £50 that you dont!!!!

Lets make it interesting and bet a jar of coffee instead and none of that "camp" liquid chicory stuff either .

keep smiling

I didn't think the rule applied to take-away just drive-thru. I can partly understand it as if the cup/tray happens to clip your window or the sales assistant loses her balance then you could be looking at coffee on your lap.

I've been to the one near wilkinons in the city centre a few times and they let me take hot drinks away

there was once a case in the uk with McDonalds where a guy and his kid were going through drive thru, he ordered a coffee and handed it to the little boy who promptly scalded himself. the guy sued and won.

i think it was stupid he won because what sensible parent hands thier young child a hot drink?

Originally posted by InvalidUser
Quite, I think it was those 700 cases that convinced the jury that McDonalds knew there was a significant risk and what they did amounted to negligence.

The fact that coffee should be served scalding hot for the best taste doesn't mean that it's a safe thing to do in a drive-thru environment. McDonalds knew this but chose to continue regardless.

If the coffee was cooler then the limit of the compensation might be a dry cleaning bill or a car valet. C

"McDonalds knew this but chose to continue regardless." that may be so, the WOMAN knew this, too, but chose to carry on, regardless!

This was a "quite mature" woman who was involved in the substantial-damages case against McD's.

She had been on this earth quite long enough to realise that:-

a) coffee is generally served at fairly high temperatures,

and

b) that to drive away, with a hot cup of coffee wedged between your thighs is NOT a very clever idea. To do that, has to constitute "a special kind of stupid", surely?

If I had been the judge, I would have laughed in that woman's face and said " Ma'am, which bit of 'coffee is hot' didn't you understand? If you knew the beverage was hot, why the heck did you attempt to drive with the cup wedged between your legs?"

If I, as an adult, go to pour some water, from my kettle, onto coffee or a teabag, to 'mash' myself a cuppa, I EXPECT to encounter boiling/ hot water, and I take precautions to protect myself and others around me from that hazard. I act accordingly.

If I was to be served a coffee or a tea that was lukewarm, Id send it back! blech!

edit to add,

Some years ago, I had an accident, where I scalded my lap area very badly, with a freshly made cup of coffee.

It was entirely my own fault.

I lifted the cup with my weak hand, and the cup wobbled, because i hadn't got a strong enough grip on it, and it tipped right into my lap.

I didn't sue the kettle manufacturer, for producing a kettle that boiled water to boiling pitch (as one would expect a kettle to do) I put it down to my own silliness, in not holding the cup correctly, which is exactly what this woman should have done.

picture the two scenaria:-

"Oh, I'm as dumb as a box of frogs... I should not have done that! I'll be more careful in future"

rather than

"Oh, I'm as dumb as a box of frogs... I should not have done that! Hmm, now, who can I make a fast buck from, out of this?"

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
"McDonalds knew this but chose to continue regardless." that may be so, the WOMAN knew this, too, but chose to carry on, regardless!
The case centred on the extremely high temperature of the coffee which in this case was enough to cause third degree burns, not just a scalding. What she knew or didn't know wasn't the issue. McDonalds have a "duty of care" to their customers.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
If I had been the judge, I would have laughed in that woman's face and said " Ma'am, which bit of 'coffee is hot' didn't you understand? If you knew the beverage was hot, why the heck did you attempt to drive with the cup wedged between your legs?"
She wasn't driving, her grandson was. Fortunately the judge in this case had the facts to hand so he didn't make such a mistake.

[i] McDonalds have a "duty of care" to their customers. [/B]

Indeed they do. Given their customers are stupid enough to do things like that they clearly need to wrap their products in cotton wool.

To protect the customer from their own stupidity.

Originally posted by Rich
That's why the likes of Injury Lawyers 4 U are so successful, despite the fact that I DESPISE that advert :rant:

In what way does you despising the advert affect them?

Originally posted by InvalidUser
The case centred on the extremely high temperature of the coffee which in this case was enough to cause third degree burns, not just a scalding. What she knew or didn't know wasn't the issue. McDonalds have a "duty of care" to their customers.


She wasn't driving, her grandson was. Fortunately the judge in this case had the facts to hand so he didn't make such a mistake.

I'm no scientist but how could the coffee be 'abnormally' hot? Boiling temperature is about as hot as you can get it isnt it? I prefer my tea from the kettle so surely its not unreasonable to ask for coffee to be hot, not lukewarm? I worked there as a sixth form student and it is kept hot on a typical coffee machine, and it isnt boiling.

Originally posted by beanpod
It's probably got something to do with the woman in America who sued McDonalds a few years back.

She drove off with her takeaway coffee. The coffee fell on her. She got scalded. She sued McDonalds for the coffee being too hot. She won.

What can you say? yeh but mcdonalds still do coffe through the drive through because i have that it just we are not american seems so stupid :confused:

I use both the KFC drive-thrus at Valley Centertainment and Penistone Road and at both substitute tea for the fizzy drink with no problem:loopy:

Originally posted by kookymonster
I'm no scientist but how could the coffee be 'abnormally' hot? Boiling temperature is about as hot as you can get it isnt it? I prefer my tea from the kettle so surely its not unreasonable to ask for coffee to be hot, not lukewarm? I worked there as a sixth form student and it is kept hot on a typical coffee machine, and it isnt boiling.

That is my argument, kooky...

The only way it could be hotter than boiling is if it were prepared in a pressure cooker (heat can be increased under pressure, that's basic physics)

Invalid user:- it does not matter whether she or her grandson was driving, the fact remains that if you're going to do something as daft as to travel with a hot cup of coffee wedged between your thighs, you should expect to take the consequences, which, to anyone with an IQ not in negative figures will reckon up to the following equation:-

Travelling in a car + boiling hot coffee, in a cup wedged between your thighs = V dangerous practice + trip to casualty!

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker

Travelling in a car + boiling hot coffee, in a cup wedged between your thighs = V dangerous practice + trip to casualty!

PT

:o :o And very difficult to explain (http://www.jodymaroni.com/images/sausage-in-hand.jpg) in A/E!!! :hihi:

Originally posted by mountainbike
AS THE WORLD GONE COMPLETELY MAD OR WHAT ?

I was lost for words this afternoon when ordering a meal at the drivethrough KFC at Drakehouse Retail Park.

My wife and I ordered two take away meals but asked if we could substitute the fizzy drinks for two coffees instead.

Although polite the assistant explained that we couldn't have the coffees to take away since it was company policy to refuse such a request on health and safety grounds!

When I questioned this she explained that we could drink the coffees inside the premises but company policy would not allow us to take them away in case we caused ourselves injury with the hot liquid !

KFC didn't want to be sued if such circumstances occured.

I have never heards such rubbish in all my life -needless to say from now on we will be taking our business elsewhere.)


:rant: :rant:

this particular restaraunt has been sued & reported for the spilling of coffee whilst the handover was taking place. as so a management decision was taken to refuse the sale of coffee on this site.
(daughter worked there when it happened)

To those interested in the whole Macdonald's coffee affair, this is an interesting article...

http://txpd.org/TPJ/18/the_image.htm

More to it than stupid woman suing unnecessarily, I reckon.

(Plus, lets face it MDs can afford it...)

CM x

part of the article:

Let me tell you about Stella Liebeck. One morning she did not have time for breakfast because her son was taking an early flight out of Albuquerque, so she left at dawn for the 60-mile trip to the airport from Santa Fe. After she dropped Jim off, she and her grandson stopped at McDonald’s for breakfast. She ordered breakfast in the drive through lane and then her grandson parked the car so she could add some cream and sugar to her coffee She tugged at the cup to try to get the top off. Her dashboard was slanted and she had no cupholder in the Ford Probe. So she put the cup between her knees and tried to pull the top off. She tugged and scalding coffee gushed into her lap. She screamed and Chris leaped from the car to help her.
Desperately, she pulled at her sweat suit squirming in a bucket seat as the coffee seared her skin By the time they reached an emergency room, second and third degree burns had spread across her buttocks and her lap.
Later, a jury awarded her $2.9 million after a trial; a judge knocked that down to $640,000 Stella Liebeck became the poster lady for the bitter “tort reform” effort.
I talk to you about Stella Liebeck, because no one can talk about the justice system, whether in the context of free expression or any other, without talking about the McDonald’s coffee case So along with Jay Leno and all the rest, so do I refer you to Stella Liebeck.
Her case illustrates many different things for many different people. For me, it illustrates the misunderstanding and the miscommunication about the justice system.
You probably have never heard that after the coffee spill, Mrs. Liebeck spent seven days in an Albuquerque hospital and about three weeks recuperating at home with her daughter. Then she was hospitalized again for skin grafts. She had lost 20 pounds—down to 83 pounds—and was practically immobilized. The grafts were almost as painful as the burn.
Mrs. Liebeck wrote to McDonald’s asking the company to turn down the coffee temperature. She was not planning to sue but she thought she was entitled to her out-of-pocket expenses, about $2,000, plus lost wages of her daughter who stayed home to care for her McDonald’s offered her $800.00.

So let's see..

She should have also sued Ford Motor Company, then, for not providing a coffee cup holder in that model of car...

It still says to me that she should have exercised more caution in handling a hot cup of coffee,

and I reitierate:-

you do not expect to be served a cold cup of coffee.

The paper cups that coffee is served in, in those establishments (mc d's BK, Starbucks/ costa) are no way as solid as an ordinary, pottery mug. I would not put a solid, pottery mug between my knees, and expect it to be secure, never mind a soft, waxed paper or plastic cup like those ones.

I still think there was a very high degree of contributory negligence on Ms Liebeck's part.

PT

Originally posted by Alex C.
In what way does you despising the advert affect them?

It doesn't, I just hate the advert, I mean just WTF is that woman on?! :rant:

[
[/b]


you do not expect to be served a cold cup of coffee.


PT [/B][/QUOTE]


I'm sorry PlainTalker but you don't expect second or third degree burns and skingrafts either............. :mad:

Originally posted by koritsi
I'm sorry PlainTalker but you don't expect second or third degree burns and skingrafts either............. :mad: Boiling water burns... There is no way of avoiding that fact.

Originally posted by koritsi
[



you do not expect to be served a cold cup of coffee.


PT


I'm sorry PlainTalker but you don't expect second or third degree burns and skingrafts either............. :mad: [/B]

it was a cup of coffee, which you should expect to be quite hot

if you spill it on yourself it'll scald, simple as. You have to exercise caution.

As I said above, I have spilled coffee over myself, accidentally. I burned my (*coff*) "lap" area quite badly, and painfully.

I now exercise caution with cups of tea and coffee etc, cos I learnt from that, that coffee is, indeed, hot, and , erm, scalds, but, oddly enough, *I* learnt that fact, without having to have it go to a trial, and be awarded compensation.

My mind works quite well enough without compensation, you see...

I realise full-well that burns, and skingrafts are not nice, but, hell, my sympathy extended only as far as the bit where she placed the flimsy coffee cup in her lap. How exactly did this lady get so 'old', without the knowledge that freshly made coffee is usually hot?

PT

Sounds to me like the coffee was a bit more than hot to cause third degree burns :(

Originally posted by koritsi
Sounds to me like the coffee was a bit more than hot to cause third degree burns :(

Then obviously, the coffee must have been made in a pressure cooker rather than a coffee machine, to be "more than hot" (see my physics post above)

I'm off to make a (careful) cup of coffee: -there's only me in the house at the mo, so I won't get very far sue-ing myself!

Note to self ( :chants mantra: )

"water from the kettle is hot... water from the kettle is hot...water from the kettle is hot... water from the kettle is hot...water from the kettle is hot... water from the kettle is hot...water from the kettle is hot... "

PT

coffee should not be made with boiling water.

And once you've made it white (added cold milk), it's enough to cause a bit of blistering if you're unlucky, if it takes the skin off then it would do the same to your mouth, that's not normally how I drink my coffee, what about you guys?

I often go to Mc Donalds and get a coffee to go

I bloody hate compensation culture. The thing I hate most is it leads to people saying "oooooh it's political correctness gone mad", when it's nowt to do with political correctness, but a bunch of money-grubbing little scrotes in for a quick buck. You can't blame companies covering their backs whilever they exist.

I understand sometimes people have accidents due to negligence, or inproper work practices, and this should of course be compensated. But if someone buys a hot drink they should stop being such a bloody baby... if you spill it it's your own fault. It's like suing the car showroom if you drive into a tree.

I hate walking up Fargate at the moment because the accident helpline folk are out in force. They're my least favourite of the whole of the Fargate lot. Worse than the charity muggers trying to emotionally blackmail you when you just want to pop into Smiths for a Twix. Worse than the clipboard people. Worse, even, than THOSE BLOODY MONKS.

Sorry, hit a nerve there! :rant:

Originally posted by Mella
I bloody hate compensation culture. The thing I hate most is it leads to people saying "oooooh it's political correctness gone mad", when it's nowt to do with political correctness, but a bunch of money-grubbing little scrotes in for a quick buck. You can't blame companies covering their backs whilever they exist.

I understand sometimes people have accidents due to negligence, or inproper work practices, and this should of course be compensated. But if someone buys a hot drink they should stop being such a bloody baby... if you spill it it's your own fault. It's like suing the car showroom if you drive into a tree.

I hate walking up Fargate at the moment because the accident helpline folk are out in force. They're my least favourite of the whole of the Fargate lot. Worse than the charity muggers trying to emotionally blackmail you when you just want to pop into Smiths for a Twix. Worse than the clipboard people. Worse, even, than THOSE BLOODY MONKS.

Sorry, hit a nerve there! :rant:

Oh I did enjoy reading this contribution:hihi:

Replies such as this make it worthwhile starting the thread in the first place!

keep smiling:clap:

I think that KFC are in no way to blame in this infact I am sure they would far rather sell you coffee but the amount of money being paid out in these claims can not be overlooked. The world has gone mad.Like you say its the greed money for nothing culture like every road accident has to have a whiplashclaim attached

Originally posted by Mella
I bloody hate compensation culture. The thing I hate most is it leads to people saying "oooooh it's political correctness gone mad", when it's nowt to do with political correctness, but a bunch of money-grubbing little scrotes in for a quick buck. You can't blame companies covering their backs whilever they exist.

I understand sometimes people have accidents due to negligence, or inproper work practices, and this should of course be compensated. But if someone buys a hot drink they should stop being such a bloody baby... if you spill it it's your own fault. It's like suing the car showroom if you drive into a tree.

I hate walking up Fargate at the moment because the accident helpline folk are out in force. They're my least favourite of the whole of the Fargate lot. Worse than the charity muggers trying to emotionally blackmail you when you just want to pop into Smiths for a Twix. Worse than the clipboard people. Worse, even, than THOSE BLOODY MONKS.

Sorry, hit a nerve there! :rant:

Yeah, the Fargate mile... What the hell is that all about? If it's not sodding Market researchers and their clipboards it's the ruddy Gouranga Monks or Big Issue sellers parked between Virgin and Dixons.. :rant:

I don't usually have an objection with the Big Issue fellas as long as they're just plying their wares, it's those BLOODY MONKS! If I really wanted to find religious enlightenment, I think I'd find it easier if I wasn't being persued up Fargate with a bloke in a woolly hat jabbering at me.

Originally posted by Mella
I don't usually have an objection with the Big Issue fellas as long as they're just plying their wares, it's those BLOODY MONKS! If I really wanted to find religious enlightenment, I think I'd find it easier if I wasn't being persued up Fargate with a bloke in a woolly hat jabbering at me.

Don't get me wrong I have no problem with Big Issue sellers other than that I feel guilty for not buying one having walked past them, but I never do as I doubt I'd read it and object to throwing a quid away for something I wouldn't use even if it is for homeless folk.... I did buy a homeless guy a Mars bar once though, went all the way into Smiths and queued for it.