Starbucks sued by Estate of Man who died trying to stop tip jar thief

[RamboLiberal]

The Starbucks coffee shop here should have known it was inviting trouble by placing a tip jar on an open counter, according to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the estate of a customer who died defending it.

The suit, filed Monday in St. Louis County Circuit Court, seeks unspecified damages from the Starbucks Corp. on behalf of the estate of Roger Kreutz and his father, Edward Kreutz Sr.

Roger Kreutz, 54, of Crestwood, was a customer at the Starbucks, 9590 Watson Road, on March 3, 2008, when he saw a teenager snatch the jar. Kreutz gave chase on foot.

Rushing to escape, Aaron Poisson, then 19, struggled with his pursuer over a car door and backed his Ford out of a parking space, knocking Kreutz to the pavement. He died two days later of head injuries.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_a87fee2a-c739-5914-96d0-30e1deeaa6b9.html

[joeybee12]

1. On the next episode of Lawyers Gone Wild!

Series-ly, WTF????

[elleng]

3. ...

:thumbsup:

[joeybee12]

41. Thanks...so, are you Mountaineers in?

Yeah, they are...Nova and Cincy are questionable.

[elleng]

43. Darn, joey, haven't followed, + daughter at Shamrockfest in DC!

OK w me if Cinti 'questionable.'

[elleng]

2. Kind of like sueing McD's for hot coffee.

Hope smart judge does her/his job here. :thumbsdown:

[joshcryer]

4. That case was legit.

But we'll keep spreading the meme that it wasn't.

[elleng]

5. I don't spread 'memes,' I have opinions.

I happen to disagree with that one. Sorry.

[inademv]

8. Then I would recommend that...

you go read the arguments instead of going by what you have heard about it.

[Swede]

55. You have to read up on the McDonald's case,ellen.

It is a ligit case.

[VoteProgressive]

59. Then you know nothing about it.

[Raine]

6. Yes, exactly

two different things here. I wish people would quit spreading that false tale, geesh at least look it up.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

13. Who the fuck orders coffee and thinks it's not hot?

Seriously? That's freaking insane.

[elleng]

18. ...

:thumbsup:

[uppityperson]

22. Who the fuck serves coffee at a drive through that is hot enough to scald people?

Seriously. That's freaking insane. There is hot and there is scalding hot and they were serving it hot enough to burn people, to burn through their skin, through the fat underneath, down to the muscl. This was much hotter than they had been instructed to.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

25. I'm not a dumb enough shit to think that if I'm ordering HOT COFFEE....

...to not expect it to be FUCKING SCORCHING!! I go to Starbucks regularly. I know the temperature that it normally is. HOWEVER, every single time I go there, I am super careful before I take the first drink because YOU NEVER KNOW. This is not due to the moron in the McDonald's drive thru who sued. This is due to common sense.
Duckie

[tammywammy]

27. The McDonald's coffee was hotter than what Starbucks serves. n/t

[uppityperson]

28. You mean the woman who parked and got 3rd degree burns, needed skin grafts when it spilled on her?

You mean that woman, or do you mean one of the other 700 customers who had been burned and wrote them letters complaining of their injuries? Not sure which one you are talking about. Thank you for clarifying.

[Ikonoklast]

61. Read up on the case.

There was no 'spill', the cup actually disintegrated, melting under the intense heat, and dumped scalding hot coffee on that woman.

This case was only one of hundreds of burn issues McDonald's was aware of with their coffee, but ignored, or tried to cover up.

The case was not only legit, but the disinformation put out in defense of the corporation was nothing but corporate propaganda disseminated by those that want to shield corporations from any responsibility for their harmful actions.


It's never their fault people got hurt, always the fault of the individual.

The courts ruled otherwise.

[Fleshdancer]

26. Who thinks serving coffee 40-50 degrees higher than normal is so damn smart?

Especially to customers who are also driving? Especially after already receiving 700 complaints from customers who were also burned? Who continues to do that and only stops after getting sued? That would be McDonald's.

[WonderGrunion]

37. If I go swimming in a public pool, I expect there to be chlorine in it

But if there is so much chlorine in it that it causes chemical scarring, then someone is negligent for that condition. McDonalds served coffee that was too hot to be fit for human consumption. They had been fined twice previously by the city for that offense but continued to do it so they could save $500 a year in thrown out coffee (coffee that is kept that hot doesn't grow bacteria over night, just like a swimming pool that has been over-chlorinated).

[Tansy_Gold]

24. Thank you. I'd have posted if you hadn't.

:thumbsup:

[joshcryer]

30. The meme will never die but I try whenever I see it.

I expect the same poster to be repeating it in a few weeks or months.

[Tansy_Gold]

51. I confronted a friend with the facts several years ago

He was laughing and joking about it, about the "stupid woman" who was driving while drinking coffee and sued McDonald's. I told him had had virtually all the facts wrong, and when he challenged me to prove it, I did. I printed out the facts about the Stella Liebeck case and handed it to him. Some months later he tried to tell the same batch of lies again and I just looked at him and said, "You know the truth. Why are you lying? Do you think it's funny or cute?" He said he didn't think it mattered, since everyone bellieved the lie was true. I replied, "Not everyone believes it. *I* don't believe it, and neither do you." I've never heard him say it since.



TG

[uppityperson]

7. You mean suing McD's for boiling coffee beyond what they were supposed to serve?

You mean that one?

[speltwon]

10. Exactly, THAT case was legit. Calling it "hot coffee" is like calling

Attila the Hun "a wee bit aggressive". Understates it significantly. The guy got 2nd degree frigging burns for pete's sake

[blaze]

11. Corporate media, in for the win!!

I've lost hope.

[liberalhistorian]

17. And they'd already been previously ordered to turn down

the temperatures on the coffee pots because it was far higher than it should have been in most of their establishments. They refused to do so. The woman injured suffered horrible burns on her legs and thighs, burns that would NOT have occurred in that fashion had the coffee been kept at the normal, regular temperature it was supposed to have been. She had a ton of medical bills and was unable to work for months. They'd had other ocmplaints and issues regarding the too-high temperature and had done NOTHING, even ignoring previous court orders to turn down the damned temperature.

The jury award was the equivalent of a day's worth of coffee profits. ONE day's worth, period. Plus payment of her medical bills and lost wages. She DID NOT GET RICH, nothing like it, and they deserved the lawsuit. People (not you, but those we're responding to) need to get the fucking facts before you go spouting off RW talking points.

elleng is entitled to his opinions, but not his own facts.

[uppityperson]

21. and they'd had many complaints over people burning themselves on coffee hotter than it should have

been? People need to get their facts straight. Seriously, it is annoying, isn't it.

[Fleshdancer]

23. 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body and she needed skin grafting!

McDonald's knew they were serving it too hot (40-50 degrees hotter than advised) and they received 700 complaints from previous customers who also suffered burns.

[elleng]

31. Do people buy coffee in order to pour it on their bodies?

What is TOO HOT? What's too hot for me is just right for my father. I know enough not to drink McD's coffee until I've opened the little opening on the top and let the coffee sit for a while to cool down. I don't attempt to remove the entire top because I know it might spill. I KNOW the coffee will be hot, and I disagree with a court that finds fault with McD for serving very hot coffee.

[Fleshdancer]

35. Too hot is 180 degrees when liquid causes 3rd degree burns to skin.

The policy for McDonald's prior to the lawsuit was to keep the coffee at 185 degrees. Compare this to the standard coffee pot at home that usually keeps the temp at around 140 degrees.

The woman in the lawsuit required skin grafting. There's no excuse for that level of physical harm.

[elleng]

38. If you're taking a shower or bath, NOT if you're drinking coffee.

[uppityperson]

42. Since there were 700 written complaints of burns and a woman got 3rd degree burns, yes, it is

Did you know that 700 other people had written complaints to McDs about getting burned by their coffee? Did you know the woman who sued had 3rd degree burns, through her skin and fat down to her muscle, from it spilling on her? Did you know that this heat was in excess of what they were told to have it at?

Yes. It is too hot for drive through coffee.

[Fleshdancer]

49. As opposed to serving coffee at the usual temp and not burning over 700 customers?

If someone prefers scalding coffee and is willing to take the risk of bodily harm, then so be it. Let them take their coffee and nuke it in the microwave for a few minutes on their own. It's a ridiculous policy however for McDonald's to instruct their franchises to serve coffee at unsafe temperatures. They were informed of the negative consequences for 10 years and decided to not change the policy.

At the end of the day, it is not unreasonable to order a cup of coffee without the fear of needing a skin graft.

[riderinthestorm]

44. It was so hot it melted the styrofoam cup! That's negligent. nt

[tabasco]

47. I guess you don't understand negligence.

Pick up a book sometime.

[elleng]

48. I'm an attorney, I understand negligence among other things.

[Tansy_Gold]

52. Do you also understand that Ms. Liebeck was found 20% at fault?

The final determination included finding her 20% negligent for not being careful enough when she opened the cup and for not reading the warning the contents may be hot, but still found McDonald's 80% liable because they had ignored the warnings, had settled hundreds of other cases, and continued to serve the dangerously hot coffee.

One of the other victims was a small child who was burned when the person hand the cup of coffee to the child's mother spilled some of the coffee on the child's head. That case never made it into the courts because McDonald's settled.

Ms. Liebeck originally only wanted McDonald's to cover the cost of her treatment and her lost work time. (She was 79 years old at the time but still working.) The total came to something between $10,000 and $20,000. Had McDonald's paid that, there would have been no lawsuit, no trial. Instead, they offered her something like $800 to go away, and she wouldn't. So it went to court, she was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.6 million in punitive damages. On appeal that was reduced to about $640,000 (roughly 80% of $800,000) and then later negotiated down further, the details of which have not been made public.

In other words, the court found that Ms. Liebeck was probably not acting very wisely when she opened the cup as it was sitting between her knees -- I'm not sure exactly where else she would have put it unless the car she was a passenger in had either a console cup holder or a glove compartment door tray -- but that her foolishness was only part of the cause. They found that 80% of the cause was McDonald's failure to obey regulations AND their greedy motivation for doing so, which was to use cheaper coffee, avoid cleaning the equipment so often, AND avoid free refills. If people couldn't drink the coffee because it was so hot, they wouldn't finish it in time to get a refill.

Just because Ms. Liebeck made what some people might consider a mistake, McDonald's made a bigger one and ultimately a more dangerous one, and one that they could easily have avoided.

Get it?


Tansy Gold

[tabasco]

58. Not a very good one then.

Me too.

[treestar]

54. The jury gave the plaintiff a verdict in that case

So the plaintiff did prove causation and injury to the jury's satisfaction.

Here, they may not be able to do that. The defense can argue that the thief's operation of the vehicle was 100% the cause of the accident, and that might well prevail.

[jp11]

9. They should sue Ford and the city/company that poured the pavement too.

[backwoodsbob]

12. ummm

shouldn't they be suing the kid who killed him?

[petronius]

You mean the kid with no assets? How could he possibly be responsible?

;)

[WatsonT]

57. Sounds like he got away the tip jar

so there's that.

[petronius]

62. That's funny... Well played!

:)

[Beaverhausen]

14. the kid has no money- why would they sue him?

in fact, according to the article, the family forgave the kid.

[JVS]

40. Yes, but he is not as tempting a target for a lawsuit.

[JI7]

15. is the lawyer getting paid to do this ?

[Duer 157099]

16. Fuck that!

Sue the jar manufacturer! I mean come on people, we need to identify the real responsible party here!

Goddamn jar manufacturers don't know when to stop.

[Recovered Repug]

19. You are so right. Big Glass Get Off My Ass!!! /nt

[madaboutharry]

20. The facts in the "McDonald's Hot Coffee" case.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

The plaintiff suffered 3rd degree burns.

[former9thward]

32. The "facts" at your link are nonsense.

"McFact #1: For years McDonald's knew that their 1850 coffee was served at least 200 hotter than at other restaurants." So this "fact" is claiming McDonalds was serving coffee 200 degrees hotter than other places. Since the boiling point of water/coffee is 212 degrees that means other restaurants must be serving at 12 degrees which is solid ice. LOL Maybe they can come up with better "facts" next time.

[namahage]

33. Or, possibly, the last "0" is supposed to be a degree sign,

and the only error is one of transcription (° -> o -> 0).

[madaboutharry]

45. It is a transcription error.

The coffee was held between 180 and 190 degrees.

[former9thward]

46. If a law firm makes that sloppy of an 'error' I would not trust them on anything else.

[dogday]

39. I had no problem understanding the facts of the case. I did

not realize the jury awarded her so much more than they were asking. She was in the hospital for 7 days. She originally asked for Dr.'s bills and lost wages and McD's offered her 800, her medical bills were 2000.

[aikoaiko]

29. Apparenlty the "estate" of Roger Kreutz is far less honorable than late Roger Kreutz.

shame on them.

[seabeyond]

34. this is why businesses fire employees when they try to stop a thief.

i have seen people angry at the company, but they do it to prevent possible death and law suit

[varkam]

36. Assumption of the risk.

It's tragic and all (and fwiw I think it's pretty moving that the perpetrator and the victim's family have been able to make amends) but I would think that Mr. Kreutz assumed the risk of injury or death by giving chase -- as we all would in that sort of situation.

[pinniped]

50. So, who the fuck appointed him chief of tip jar security?

Don't think I'll be asking anyone help get coffee for me at Starbucks again.

[treestar]

53. Up to the jury or maybe a summary judgment

Though causation could be an issue there. The plaintiff had free will. He didn't have to chase the guy. The thief's actions seem to be the cause of death. It will be difficult to tie it to the tip jar being on the counter.

It would make an interesting motion for summary judgment, using the state's case law on causation in tort cases.

[elleng]

60. Agree. 'Cause' so attenuated 'society' would never expect such liability, imo.

Remember Palsgraf?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Palsgraf+v.+Long+Island+Railroad+Company

[trumad]

63. Here--- I thought you might want to watch this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ktM-lIfeQ

Maybe it will enlighten you a bit.

[WatsonT]

56. I appreciate that he was probably just trying to help

but for maybe 10 bucks in change . . . just let it go man.

And his estate should stop this nonsense.

This is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit.