Canfield Man Sues Panera over Hot Coffee

• ts1227

  

  Blames them because:
  1. Coffee too hot
  2. Not given lid
  3. Wobbly table sent it over and burnt him
  
  REALLY?
  
  http://vindy.com/news/2010/feb/18/man-suing-canfield-panera-over-hot-coffee/?newswatch
• 2quik4u

  

  he will probably win to
• UA5straightin2008

  

  why wouldnt you sue if you can win a shitload of money?
• I Wear Pants

  I blame the system more than the dude. I don't know if I could resist the easy settlement check if something similar happened to me, I'd be able to help my parents so much with it that I'd feel like a bastard if I didn't try to get some money out of it.
  
  But we need to change our laws so that you can't sue for being an idiot.
• ts1227

  

  Yeah, I forgot to mention the sad fact that he will win the case.
• 2quik4u

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: I blame the system more than the dude. I don't know if I could resist the easy settlement check if something similar happened to me, I'd be able to help my parents so much with it that I'd feel like a bastard if I didn't try to get some money out of it.
  
  But we need to change our laws so that you can't sue for being an idiot.

  Change to what Britain has which is if you sue someone and lose you have to pay the court costs for both parties
• Trueblue23

  

  Atleast there wasn't a finger in his coffee!
• tk421

  

  There is precedent for this kind of thing. Remember the older lady and McDonalds?
• Glory Days

  

  I would ask this dude and his lawyer to determine at what point coffee becomes "excessively hot" and then ask the judge to dismiss the case.
• Glory Days

  

  tk421 wrote: There is precedent for this kind of thing. Remember the older lady and McDonalds?

  That can also go both ways possibly. Because of that case, consumers should be aware that they may be burned by coffee and they take a risk in drinking it. Almost like attending a baseball game and being struck by a foul ball.
• Quint

  

  I wouldn't pass judgment on the dude so fast, although I do understand. I remember thinking the same thing when the old lady sued McD's for their hot coffee. After reading the actual facts of the case, my opinion shifted a little. I think she had 3rd degree burns all over her lap and crotch region.
  
  That being said. . . I still don't like these types of lawsuits. It seems like there should be some type of open and obvious defense to getting burned by coffee.
• tk421

  

  Quint wrote: I wouldn't pass judgment on the dude so fast, although I do understand. I remember thinking the same thing when the old lady sued McD's for their hot coffee. After reading the actual facts of the case, my opinion shifted a little. I think she had 3rd degree burns all over her lap and crotch region.
  
  That being said. . . I still don't like these types of lawsuits. It seems like there should be some type of open and obvious defense to getting burned by coffee.

  Maybe Panera needs/didn't have a "Caution Hot" sign with their coffee.
• Quint

  

  I wouldn't think you would need a caution sign personally! Everyone knows coffee is usually hot. This just seems kind of like suing a store for breaking your toe on a table or something in the store. Everyone sees the table. They know it is there, and they should take caution when walking around it. They shouldn't have to be warned about possibly stubbing a toe on it. I know Ohio has an open and obvious defense for premises owners in situations like this. . . it seems to me like it would be applicable to a hot coffee situation too. I don't know though. . . I'm far from an expert on torts.
• tk421

  

  Quint wrote: I wouldn't think you would need a caution sign personally! Everyone knows coffee is usually hot. This just seems kind of like suing a store for breaking your toe on a table or something in the store. Everyone sees the table. They know it is there, and they should take caution when walking around it. They shouldn't have to be warned about possibly stubbing a toe on it. I know Ohio has an open and obvious defense for premises owners in situations like this. . . it seems to me like it would be applicable to a hot coffee situation too. I don't know though. . . I'm far from an expert on torts.

  That would require personal responsibility, something this country is seriously lacking. Ever notice the warnings on all of the products you buy every day? They are there because some stupid idiot used the item incorrectly then probably sued the company, or to keep someone from suing the company.
• stroups

  

  UA5straightin2008 wrote: why wouldnt you sue if you can win a shitload of money?

  because people would judge you in a completely different way. I would not be friends with someone like that or have them at my house because of the fact that they would sue me over something stupid. Is getting some money worth ruining your reputation?
  
  For me it's not
• Timber

  Should have been drinking cola... No problems!
• ytownfootball

  

  Considering the guy that owns the Panera chain (maybe not this one particularly, but likely) Sam Covelli, owned and operated multiple McDonalds franchises prior to opening his Panera chain, I think it's safe to assume he knows all about the regulations on serving hot beverages...
  
  He might just let it go to court and make a mockery of this guy.
• NNN

  

  tk421 wrote: There is precedent for this kind of thing. Remember the older lady and McDonalds?

  Sure do. The right decision was made in that case.
• ytownfootball

  

  I remember the case certainly, the thing I DON'T remember are the resulting restrictions...
  
  For example, lids, precautionary statements I do remember. There was, however a specific serving temperature that was set as a result of this case, I don't recall what that was. I'm nearly certain the temperature was at or under that mark in this recent case, due to the owners familiarity of the previous one.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Stupid, if it was cold, he'd bitch. How many other people sat at that table and didn't burn themselves?
  
  Fuck people like this, they should be put in a plane, sent to 35,000 feet over the Pacific and thrown out without a parachute. Maybe he could sue the airline before he hit the bottom...
• I Wear Pants

  Glory Days wrote:

  tk421 wrote: There is precedent for this kind of thing. Remember the older lady and McDonalds?

  That can also go both ways possibly. Because of that case, consumers should be aware that they may be burned by coffee and they take a risk in drinking it. Almost like attending a baseball game and being struck by a foul ball.

  I don't think precedent works that way.
• NNN

  

  ytownfootball wrote: I remember the case certainly, the thing I DON'T remember are the resulting restrictions...
  
  For example, lids, precautionary statements I do remember. There was, however a specific serving temperature that was set as a result of this case, I don't recall what that was. I'm nearly certain the temperature was at or under that mark in this recent case, due to the owners familiarity of the previous one.

  There was a generally accepted industry standard for serving hot drinks (of which coffee would be one) that was roughly 160 degrees Fahrenheit. McDonald's had brewed theirs at a temperature of between 195 and 205 degrees Fahrenheit and ordered a holding temperate of between 180 and 190 degrees (20-30 degrees hotter than standard).
  
  McDonald's' defense was predicated largely around "We've received thousands of complaints of excessively hot coffee, including severe burns as a result, and none has ever resulted in a large judgment against us. Legal precedent therefore dictates that nothing should change." The plaintiff's claim was "Yeah, you've received thousands of complaints spanning over 20 years and you refuse to lower the temperature to the industry standard even after severe injuries result. That's a pretty clear pattern of negligence."
• ytownfootball

  

  160 was what I thought but wasn't sure.
  
  Warranted in that case I thought, especially served through the drive-thru? Don't remember all details.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  People want cooler coffee so they don't burn themselves, they want hotter coffee because it's better coffee. You can't ever make them happy. People are stupid, thats the only thing that I really take from this. And I hope this guy doesn't win this lawsuit.
  
  All the coffee drinkers are going to die of cancer anyways, are they going to start treating it like cigarettes and sue the coffee companies?
• ytownfootball

  

  I doubt this guy wins, he may get a little coin to save everyone the trouble, but I don't think Covelli is that stupid.