The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Religion & Culture / Atheist Fools
|Subject: Re: Hot Coffee||Date: 3/4/2013 8:44 PM|
|Author: MDGluon||Number: 418855 of 485134|
a nice chunk of change for McDonalds and the fact that they had burned customers in the past was simply not enough of a motivation for them to change their brewing practice because even with settling the other suits it was coming out ahead financially.
Actually if you read the court transcripts one of the more "enlightening" parts was where the McDonalds engineer talked quite openly about doing a "risk" analysis that indicated they would make more money with the high temp coffee process (less coffee needed and it stays "fresh" longer so fewer dump and changes)as compared to the costs of litigation and lawsuits.
He quite openly admitted that McDonald's didn't care if they hurt the customer...or he gave that perception.
Also the coffee cup design had been a issue for some time with a tendency to collapse with very little pressure....but again a redesign would cost money, cost more for the cup, and what would you do with the large inventory of old style collapse-o-cups?
McD's coffee cups today are a completely different and safer design and they ask you if you want cream and sugar and put it in now prior to giving you the coffee so you no longer have to mess around pulling off a lid and putting things in.....
...all a result of this lawsuit.
Safer cup design
Safer procedure of putting cream/sugar into coffee prior to delivery
and they lowered the temperature (slightly)/
Of course if this lawsuit had not cost them this large settlement then it is possible that McD's would never have changed things...or maybe they would have since they "care" a great deal about the customer <---that is sarcasm dudes.
The drive for lower costs with a loss of fear of customer lawsuits for wrong doing or uncaring view of the public is a likely outcome of so called tort reform....at so my logic and knowledge of human greed would indicate.
The case was instructive but folks have learned the wrong lessons due to the wonders of PR and deep advertisement pockets.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|