Posted: 8/30/2007 6:14:32 AM EDT
I was working with an old friend who was bragging about how much money he saves by buying his mocha java latte designer coffee at 7-11 and not Starbuck's... On the cup it says "caution hot!" "cuidado caliente"  To quote R. Lee Ermey, "well, no shit!" I mean come on, who the fuck doesn't know coffee is hot!? Ever since some prick who won a lawsuit against McDonald's for millions we have to live with this shit printed on everything. Plastic bags are marked - "Not a toy. May cause asphyxiation" Then they show an image of a baby getting choked with a bag for those who are illiterate, or don't speak English or Spanish. [i guess all the other cultures' languages in this country don't count] Curtains have tags warning that a baby can get hung or choke on them Lighters have child-proof safeties that it seems only children are able to use, usually having to show the adult how to operate the item using the child-proof safety... Nowadays everything is child-proof. Stroller and cradles have more warning labels on them than radioactive waste! WTF is this country coming to where we have jury's awarding the stupidest sons-o'-bitches millions that should have been the recipient of a Darwin Award! Who picks these juries? If you spilled hot coffee in your lap in your car, i say too bad, life's a challenge. "That which does not kill you only makes you stronger" Live and learn, jackass, try being more careful with your designer swill coffee from McD's while driving. Better yet, try concentrating on driving and not worry about your "morning coffee fix" I can't get away from liability weasel words printed on every single article and item that i use or operate. Why can't we go back to the good ol' days with lead-based paint and gas, play lawn Jarts if we so please, and smoke your cigarettes without some jagoff telling you it's bad or dangerous to you and/or your health!!
|
|
The "prick" who sued McDonald's was an What is the minimum you would accept for third-degree burns to your goodies? Edit: Corrected patron's age and relationship of driver to patron. She was 79 at the time of the incident, 81 when the case was completed. Corrected the manner is which the judgment was reduced. I believe that the actual settlement of the case was less than the reduced judgment, but the terms of the settlement are undisclosed. |
|
No liability lawsuit "reward" should go above %100 of your yearly income, or if unemployed the average household income for your zip code. Example: If a person makes $40k a year and they get burned, scarred, damaged, emotionally damaged, etc, and can not amke the $40k per year because of such damages, then to make up for such damages the liable party will need to foreit $40k a year to the injured party via yearly payments or a lump sum amount of money that will in turn yield an interest income of $40k a year. At %6 return, a $680,000 investment is what the "award" should be to provide the %40k income a year. Guys like John Edwards will take MD's to court and dig as deep as they can to "prove" that the MD made a mistake in meds and caused the "injured" party to gain 40lbs of blubber and it is worth $10 million dollars. |
If I gave/loaned/sold you a gun and you dropped it or put it into a holster and promptly shot yourself in the foot due to YOUR carelessness... you would sue me??? You would expect me to pay for your self inflicted wound? |
bingo.. we had a few semi off the beaten path places that were used for ATVs and go-carts .. many happy memories growing up.. now they are fenced off 
|
So then by your estimation my client who was paralyzed by a blatantly stupid medical procedure and who's medical care is now paid for by the federal government would receive no money from your jury because he was retired? SBG |
Admit it, you didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about that statement, did you? As previously mentioned, where do retirees fit in? Handicapped people? Independently wealthy people? If you win the lottery, no longer have to work and a UPS truck runs a stop sign and disables you, you don't expect compensation? Edit: Whoops, I just read the "average household income" part. Fuck that. Who cares how much my neighbors make. |
Coffee is designed to be a beverage for immediate human consumption. The injury was not caused by merely spilling coffee. The injury was caused by spilling coffee that was served at a much higher than normal temperature. I know how hot the coffee is at my house. I know that if I spill it on my lap, it will be hot, wet and uncomfortable. I further know that it won't give me third-degree burns. I know that "coffee" in general is a "hot" beverage. It should not be so hot as to cause severe physical harm upon incidental contact. I abhor the nanny-society and frivolous lawsuits as much as the next guy. However, I think that many people refer to the McDonald's coffee case without knowing the facts of the case. |
|
My 0.02. Many (most?) people now believe that the ultimate goal of life is safety, not freedom. They are programmed from birth to believe that keeping someone alive for the maximum number of years is the end all of human existence. Everything in our society is moving toward that goal and anything that might reduce that, by even months, is seen as a reason to put us all in plastic bubbles or Matrix pods. Anyone that does anything that might even remotely put absolute safety at any position other than #1 is to be mercilessly suppressed. Any activity that has the remotest possibly of causing the slightest injury must be regulated, with the ultimate goal of eradicating it. Anyone that's over the age of 30 can list dozens of things they did in their younger days that would get them arrested, jailed, fined or sued out of existence today. Is our society any better for it? Well, the government and lawyers seem to be making a killing off safety, but the Citizens become more sheeple like, compliant and frightened by the Real World every day. |
I agree with that. That also does not take into account unnecessary pain inflicted upon you. You work at McDonalds as a college student and make 20k a year. You get hit by a taxi driver going 55 in a 35. You get paralized, and use a wheelchair for the rest of your life. You get stuck with wheeling yourself around for the rest of your life making $20 grand a year  ?Simply put, common sense should be applied to such cases by our judges, and a fair and just compensation rewarded WHEN deserved. |
That's a very thoughtful observation. |
|
Coffee is hot. Water is wet. A plastic grocery bag isn't a toy. It's very simple. If you so choose to endanger yourself doing careless, thoughtless acts, fine, just don't expect to get rewarded for claiming someone else is at fault when it was you own careless act that brought the whole situation about. No, i didn't know all of the exact details of the McD's case, but to me, hot coffee is hot freakin' coffee, 175* degrees, or 210* degrees, hot is hot. Have you ever eaten a McD's Hot Apple Pie? They must put lava in those things! I swear they're at least 300* freakin degrees! I presume they're called "HOT" Apple Pies for a reason and take precaution when i'm eating those things! Our society has become too litigious over silly obvious shit Does Ruger still roll mark their barrels with "See owner's manual for safety blah blah blah..." ? Remember our beloved 1911 didn't need the special extra safety incorporated into it through two wars, a 'police action', and Vietnam... Now we have to have locks incorporated into guns because of litigation directly related to carelessness and irresponsibility by people that probably shouldn't have had guns in the first place. |
And McDonald's coffee has been that hot forever and anyone with half a brain knew it. Yet this stupid old bitch took the lid off and jammed the cup between her legs. That makes her 100% responsible for her burns, not McDonald's. But instead of being responsible for sticking an uncovered cup of hot liquid between her legs, it is McDonald's fault for serving the stupid bitch in the first place.  Sorry, but the McDonald's coffee case is a microcosm of everything wrong with our legal system today. |
|
Everyone keeps bringing up the McDonald's coffee incident with one group of people saying that although everyone knows that coffee is hot, this coffee was much hotter than normal and the other group basically saying that it doesn't matter how hot it is, people know that it is hot and cannot recover anything for it, no matter how hot it is. I am in the crowd that thinks that the McDonald's case was a good case. The damages were excessive (and they were lowered on appeal), but overall I believe that it was a good decision. The problem isn't that the coffee was hot, the problem is that the coffee was much hotter than normal without any reason why. This makes it more of a health hazard. As others have pointed out, if you spill normal coffee on your lap you don't suffer third degree burns. You are uncomfortable yes, but you don't sustain burns. In addition, I don't have a citation providing support for this but I believe that McDonald's had actually received multiple complaints about the temperature of their coffee and refused to do anything about it. I don't have a problem with this when a company makes a product unreasonably dangerous with no valid reason why or more dangerous than would be expected based upon a person's life experiences. For example, if an ammunition company decided to start adding 20% more powder to their rounds causing the ammunition to damage guns and cause injuries to people. The ammunition company knows that there is more powder than is safe and have received complaints about it but refuse to do anything. If a person buys this ammunition without being aware of the problem but knowing that other manufacturer's ammunition is perfectly safe in his gun, shoots it, and in the process the malfunction is sufficiently bad that it causes him to lose his fingers, should he lose his ability to sue because he knows that ammunition is explosive and can potentially cause injuries. I don't think so, I think that if the company makes a product unreasonably dangerous, they should suffer the consequences of it. Now this doesn't mean that I am in favor of suing because a parent does not watch their child closely enough and the child places a plastic bag over their head or similar things like that. People expect plastic bags to be dangerous. People expect their coffee to be hot, but they don't expect it to be 20 degrees hotter than normal and capable of causing third degree burns. I hope that this makes sense, I am trying to type it quickly before leaving work to go home. If a product is more dangerous with no reason than other similar products than the company should face potential liability for any injuries. ETA: During discovery, McDonald's admitted that it had received over 700 complaints regarding burns caused by their coffee. You can assume that the number of actual people suffering burns is higher because not everyone who got burned would have reported it. McDonald's knew that their coffee was causing injuries but refused to act on it. |
I don't think that she is 100% responsible for her burns. She had the cup between her legs and spilled the coffee while attempting (in a stopped car that she was a passenger in) to remove the top to add sugar and cream. It is not unusual that people would take the lid off of the coffee to add condiments. She was not acting in an unreasonable manner when she did this. If the coffee had been a normal temperature and she had spilled it she would not have suffered third degree burns. The fact that the cup was not covered does not change the fact that the coffee was served at a temperature that was too hot. During discovery, McDonald's admitted that there was the threat of burns with any food product above 140 degrees. McDonald's also admitted that they keep the coffee at 185 degrees, +/- 5 degrees. Typically coffee is 135-140 degrees. McDonald's was serving coffee that was around 40 degrees hotter than an average cup of coffee and hot enough to cause burns in a person's mouth and throat even if they did not spill it. The quality assurance director also admitted that the coffee as it was served was too hot for consumption, they knew that it would cause burns, and still didn't change the temperature. ETA: I think that it is a stretch to say that everyone with half a brain knows that McDonald's coffee was much hotter than normal. I think that people generally know that coffee is hot, but what if they have never been to McDonald's to get coffee? |
Sometimes stupid hurts. It WAS HER FAULT that she spilt the coffee. |
|
Here's an excellent write-up on the actual lawsuit. It's long, but it's worth the read. "And Now, The Rest Of The Story . . . About The McDonald’s Coffee Lawsuit", from the July/August issue of the Houston Lawyer. By Kevin G. Cain We have probably all heard someone say, “Watch out! That coffee is hot. You could have a lawsuit on your hands.” Somehow, somewhere along the way, the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit became the poster child for frivolous lawsuits. Who hasn’t taken a crack at this lawsuit for the sake of furthering their own cause? David Letterman and numerous other comedians have exploited this case as the punch-line to countless jokes.[1] One of my favorite Seinfield episodes involves Cosmo Kramer suing Java World after Kramer spills a cup of café latté on himself while trying to get a seat at a movie theater.[2] Kramer suffers from minor burns that are easily remedied after a single application of a balm given to Kramer by the Maestro. Kramer asks his favorite attorney, Jackie Chiles, if the fact that he tried to sneak the coffee into the theater is going to be a problem in their lawsuit. Jackie responds, “Yeah, that’s going to be a problem. It’s gonna be a problem for them. This is a clear violation of your rights as a consumer. It’s an infringement on your constitutional rights. It’s outrageous, egregious, preposterous.”[3] When Kramer asks if this lawsuit has a chance, Jackie responds, “Do we have a chance? You get me one coffee drinker on that jury, you gonna walk outta there a rich man.”[4] Of course, Elaine is less than supportive when she finds out about Kramer’s latest lawsuit and quips, “What I mean is who ever heard of this anyway? Suing a company because their coffee is too hot? Coffee is supposed to be hot.”[5] Obviously, Jerry and company are taking their own shots at the McDonald’s lawsuit in particular, and at frivolous lawsuits in general. “I mean, come on! If ever there was a frivolous lawsuit, this is it. Right? It’s coffee, it’s hot, and someone got burned. Why should someone get rich off of coffee being hot? Some lady gets millions, and all I ever get for drinking coffee that is too hot is a mild blister in my mouth and the obligatory caffeine buzz that I expect in the morning with my coffee.”[6] It seems that nearly everyone has an opinion about frivolous lawsuits. This author recently removed a box containing class handouts sitting on the floor in the middle of an entryway into a Bible classroom and asked the person who put the box there if he minded my moving the box because someone could accidentally get hurt. The person responded (knowing that I was an attorney) by simply snorting as he walked away, “I think everyone who files a frivolous lawsuit should be shot.” “Objection, non-responsive,” I thought, but you get the point. All too often there does not appear to be much we can do to change people’s opinions on this subject. Or is there? “Just the facts ma’am; just the facts.” A line made famous by Dragnet’s Sergeant Joe Friday may be the answer. Unfortunately, people often refuse to let the facts alter their points of view. “I have my opinion, and I won’t let truth, reality, or the facts get in the way.”[7] However, if people really knew the true facts about the McDonald’s lawsuit, few would have the same opinion (or misconception) that they carry around today. Let’s be honest. Most people, attorneys included, know little to nothing about the infamous McDonald’s lawsuit other than the last joke they heard about it. A woman spilled some McDonald’s coffee on herself, got burned, and got millions of dollars. That is about all most of us know about this woman and her legendary lawsuit. And yet many uninformed people have very strong opinions on this case. Well, as Paul Harvey says, “And now, the rest of the story.” Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants[ 8] Seventy-nine-year-old Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was sitting in the passenger seat when her grandson drove his car through a McDonald’s drive through window in February 1992.[9] Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a McDonald’s styrofoam cup.[10] After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped for his grandmother to add sugar and cream to her coffee.[11] (The rumors of Liebeck spilling her coffee while driving were inaccurate.[12] The car was not moving, and she was not driving.) While parked, Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup.[13] As she attempted to remove the lid, the contents of the cup spilled into her lap.[14] The coffee was estimated to be somewhere between 180 to 190 degrees.[15] Ms. Liebeck was wearing sweatpants that day, which absorbed the scorching coffee, holding it next to her skin.[16] A vascular surgeon diagnosed Liebeck as having suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns)[17] over her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.[18] These third degree burns extended through to Liebeck’s subcutaneous fat, muscle, or bone.[19] While she was hospitalized for eight days, Liebeck underwent skin grafting, and later underwent debridement[20] treatments.[21] Liebeck was permanently disfigured and disabled for two years as a result of this incident.[22] Ms. Liebeck, a retired department store clerk, informed McDonald’s of her accident and requested that McDonald’s pay for her medical expenses totaling approximately $11,000. McDonald’s refused.[23] With no other recourse in sight, Ms. Liebeck retained an attorney from Houston named Morgan Reed who had filed a similar hot-coffee lawsuit against McDonald’s in 1986.[24] Mr. Reed’s prior case against McDonald’s involved a Houston woman who suffered third-degree burns from McDonald’s coffee.[25] In that 1986 case, Mr. Morgan deposed Christopher Appleton, a McDonald’s quality assurance manager, who testified that “he was aware of this risk . . . and had no plans to turn down the heat.”[26] McDonald’s settled that case for $27,500.[27] Before filing suit, Liebeck requested that McDonald’s pay $90,000 for Liebeck’s medical expenses and pain and suffering.[28] McDonald’s countered with a generous offer of $800.[29] Ms. Liebeck had never filed a lawsuit before in her life, and she said she never would have filed this lawsuit if McDonald’s “hadn’t dismissed her request for compensation for pain and medical bills with an offer of $800.”[30] Ms. Liebeck brought suit against McDonald’s in 1993 alleging that the coffee she purchased was defective because of its excessive heat and because of inadequate warnings.[31] Punitive damages were also sought based on the allegation that McDonald’s acted with conscious indifference for the safety of its customers.[32] As the trial date neared, Liebeck’s attorney offered to settle the case on her behalf for $300,000 and reportedly would have settled for half that amount.[33] A mediator recommended a $225,000 settlement on the eve of trial, but McDonald’s again refused any attempt to settle.[34] At trial the evidence was simply damning. It was learned that McDonald’s was aware of more than 700 claims brought against it between 1982 and 1992 due to people being burned by its coffee.[35] Some of these claims involved third-degree burns that were substantially similar to the burns suffered by Liebeck.[36] Moreover, McDonald’s had previously spent over $500,000 in settling these prior coffee-burn claims.[37] In spite of the knowledge of these claims and this inherent danger with its coffee, McDonald’s refused to change its corporate policy and serve its coffee at a safer temperature.[38] McDonald’s own quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s enforced a policy requirement that all coffee be served at 185 degrees, give or take five degrees.[39] He also admitted that its coffee was not “fit for consumption” because it would cause scalding injuries to the mouth and throat if drunk by the consumer.[40] Q: [Y]ou know, as a matter of fact, that coffee is a hazard, selling it at 180 to 190 degrees, don’t you? A: I have testified before, the fact that this coffee can cause burns. Q: It is hazardous at this temperature? A: At that high temperature the coffee is a hazard. . . . Q: If customers attempt to swallow that coffee, isn’t it a fact that it will scald their throat or esophagus? A: Yes, under those conditions, if they could get the coffee in their throat, that could happen, yes. . . . [41] The same McDonald’s quality assurance manager continued to testify, illustrating McDonald’s culpability: Q: So. . . when somebody buys a cup of coffee and it’s sold to them at McDonald’s and they go to sit down and drink it in less than five minutes, it’s not fit for consumption to drink, if consumption means to drink? . . . A: It’s perfectly fit to open the top and add cream and sugar and really dilute the product as far as temperature goes and it probably would be very fit for consumption . . . . Q: If you don’t mind getting burned it’s fit for consumption. My question is, is it fit to be drunk, actually fluid going down your esophagus? A: I think I already answered that. Q: And the answer is no, it’s not, isn’t it? A: Yes, we answered that.[42] While coffee at various temperatures has the capacity to inflict burns, the problem with McDonald’s coffee is the fast rate at which it could cause such serious burns. McDonald’s own expert testified that coffee served above 130 degrees could produce third degree burns; therefore, McDonald’s argued, it did not matter whether its coffee was served at 180 to 190 degrees.[43] However, this argument has some serious flaws that the plaintiff exploited. Charles Baxter, Liebeck’s expert in thermodynamics as applied to skin burns, testified that liquids can cause full thickness (third-degree) burns to skin in two to three seconds at 190 degrees, in 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees, and in 20 seconds at 160 degrees.[44] Obviously, if Liebeck’s coffee had been served just a little less scalding, vital seconds could have been added to her response time to allow her to get out of her grandson’s car and disrobe to prevent more serious burns from occurring. Unfortunately, Ms. Liebeck had only about two or three seconds before third-degree burns set in, and the instantaneous damage was already done. Plaintiff’s warnings expert, Lila Laux, testified that while people know that coffee is hot, they do not know how severe (i.e., third-degree) these burns can be and how quickly the burns can set in.[45] An obvious question needs to be asked at this point. Why did McDonald’s make their coffee so hot? If this danger of scalding customers was known and could be easily remedied, then why not simply reduce the temperature of its coffee? That question was answered at trial. McDonald’s requires that its coffee be prepared at scalding temperatures, based on the recommendations of coffee consultants and industry groups which claim that hot temperatures are necessary to fully extract the full coffee-flavor during the brewing process.[46] McDonald’s operations and training manual states that its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste.[47] Keep in mind that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Hence, the reason for preparing the coffee at near boiling temperatures was to optimize the taste. Besides, one billion annual McDonald’s coffee drinkers cannot all be wrong, can they? McDonald’s knew that its coffee was being served at extremely hot temperatures, but market research told them that McDonald’s customers “want hot coffee, they want it steamy hot, and they expect to get it that way.”[48] McDonald’s indifference to customer safety is evident in the following testimony from McDonald’s quality assurance manager: Q: Isn’t it a fact that back in 1988, when I showed you the pictures of the young lady that was burned in that situation, that you were appalled and surprised that coffee could cause that kind of burn? A: Yes, I had never seen photographs like that before. Q: All right. In those six years, you still have not attempted, yourself, or know of anyone within the corporation that has attempted to find out the rate of speed, the lack of margin of safety in serving coffee at this temperature right . . . . A: No, we have not.[49] McDonald’s continued to demonstrate this same corporate indifference. McDonald’s human factors engineer, Dr. P. Robert Knaff, testified that the number of hot coffee burns that occur are “statistically insignificant” when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald’s sells annually.[ 50] This callousness was further demonstrated by the testimony of McDonald’s quality assurance manager, who stated: Q: So a fair way to assess your reasoning is, “A few people are being seriously burned with deep second and third degree burns requiring hospitalization, but out of the billions of cups of coffee we sell, there’s not been enough burned to where we need to stop selling it that hot?” A: There’s a very low probability of an accident as a result of using the product and we know that the customers want the product hot so we’re at this time continuing with our current practice. . . . Q: Mr. Appleton, do you know how McDonald’s Corporation informs itself of the severity of the burns that are recorded on Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3? Do you know what they do to ascertain how serious those burns are? A: I’m not intimately familiar with the process. I believe it’s handled through our insurance company. Q: So for you to say that you haven’t formulated a conclusion that there have been enough severe burns to warrant turning down the temperature on your coffee, you are speaking without knowledge of the extent and severity of the burns that were reflected in those computer printouts, is that right? A: I think that I don’t think we have a good measure of the severity of each of these. Q: Well, I’m curious because I’ve shown you recordations here of some 700 people here that have been burned. Obviously, to you 700 people burned is not a significantly high enough number to turn down the heat. Do you have in mind a number of how many people would have to be burned for you to become so concerned that you would insist that burn specialists be consulted and something be done to sell this coffee at a lower temperature? A: No, I don’t have a number in mind.[51] At trial, McDonald’s argued that Liebeck contributed to her own injuries by placing the coffee cup between her legs and by not removing her clothing promptly after the spill.[52] McDonald’s further alleged that the severe nature of the burns suffered by Ms. Liebeck were worse than usual because of her older skin making her more vulnerable to more serious injuries.[53] A McDonald’s executive testified that McDonald’s had chosen not to warn its customers of the possible severe burns its coffee could cause because “(t)here are more serious dangers in restaurants.”[54] McDonald’s human factors engineer admitted that the number of hot coffee burns suffered by McDonald’s customers are “statistically insignificant” in comparison to the one billion cups of coffee sold by McDonald’s each year.[55] After seven days of evidence, testimony, and arguments of counsel, the jury retired to deliberate. The jury determined McDonald’s was liable on the claims of product defect, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose.[56] The jury further determined that Ms. Liebeck’s injuries merited an award of $200,000 compensatory damages.[57] However, because the jury found that Ms. Liebeck was 20% at fault, that award was reduced proportionately to $160,000.[58] Finally, the jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages based on its finding of willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct.[59] The amount of $2.7 million was arrived at based on evidence the jury heard that McDonald’s daily coffee revenues amounted to approximately $1.34 million.[60] These exemplary damages represented about two days worth of McDonald’s coffee revenues.[61] However, a fact that rarely ever makes headlines (in this case, or in any allegedly “fraudulent” lawsuit) is that the punitive damages were reduced by the trial court to $480,000 (three times the compensatory damages) for a total award of $640,000.[62] Judge Robert H. Scott, who presided over this trial, stated in regard to the reduced punitive damages award: I think that there was evidence and argument about the Defendant’s knowledge that the coffee could cause serious, third degree, full tissue burns. The Defendant McDonald’s knew that the coffee, at the time it was served, was too hot for human consumption . . . . [T]he written transcript is not going to reveal the attitudes of corporate indifference presented by demeanor or of the witnesses for the Defendant McDonald’s as well as their employees, but the jury was exposed to it and I think that they properly considered it in their deliberations. And let me say that with knowing the risk of harm, the evidence and testimony would indicate that McDonald’s consciously made no serious effort to warn its consumers by placing just the most simple, adequate warning on the lid of the cup in which the coffee was served. . . . This is all evidence of culpable corporate mental state and I conclude that the award of punitive damages is and was appropriate to punish and deter the Defendant for their wanton conduct and to send a clear message to this Defendant that corrective measures are appropriate.[63] Judge Scott ordered the parties to engage in a post-verdict settlement conference which resulted in a settlement of the case for an undisclosed amount (less than $600,000) which remains confidential. Ms. Liebeck’s case was dismissed with prejudice on November 28, 1994.[64] McDonald's has taken some remedial measures in the aftermath of the Liebeck lawsuit. Many McDonald’s drive-thrus now have a sign warning, “Coffee, tea and hot chocolate are VERY HOT!” Also, the lids of McDonald’s hot beverage cups are now embossed with the words “HOT! HOT! HOT!” It is debatable whether the coffee at McDonald’s is served any cooler than the coffee that injured Ms. Liebeck. Some sources indicate that McDonald’s current policy is to serve coffee between 175-195 degrees Fahrenheit.[65] The industry standard still calls for near boiling temperatures for the best-tasting coffee.[66] Hence, the current reaction to coffee lawsuits is to do a better job of warning, but maintain the temperature for better tasting java. So, what can we take from all this? First, the McDonald’s coffee case is not a frivolous case, as most uninformed people believe. In fact, Ms. Liebeck had a very strong case against a very unsympathetic corporate defendant. An argument can obviously be made that the punitive damages should not have been decreased, especially in light of the purpose of punitive damages. Does anyone really think that $480,000 is going to sting and deter the McDonald’s empire the way that $2.7 million would? This is not about getting rich; it is about shocking back to life the conscience of a corporate giant that could not be bothered with people who are victimized by their negligence and callous indifference. The facts demonstrate that this case was far from frivolous. Second, we as attorneys can and must do our part to help change the public perception of our legal system. Far too many have the misconception that if any insignificant, trivial misfortune happens to you, then you can manipulate the legal system until you finally strike gold. That simply is not the case. Our legal system has numerous checks and balances and control measures in place that deter and penalize frivolous lawsuits and curb excessive jury verdicts. Our legal system works; and those who degrade and twist our profession by spreading half-truths and distorting reality sadly align themselves with those who have exploited the ignorance-induced fear of others throughout history. It is truly amazing how the truth can change perspectives. “But what if they won’t listen to me?” Just like Moses at the burning bush, we may need a little extra ammunition for the mission ahead. Well, here it is. The next time someone is indulging in the latest pastime sport of “lawyer-bashing,” challenge that person by saying, “I’ll bet you probably think that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was a frivolous lawsuit, don’t you?” After they accept the challenge to your seemingly indefensible position, you can then begin to (politely) dismantle their perception of the poster child, cornerstone, and personification of frivolous lawsuits by informing them of “the rest of the story” behind Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants. You will have begun a dialogue that will help change the misconceptions of our profession and our legal system. Each of us owes this duty to our profession in the face of the attacks that we have unfortunately grown all too accustomed to. I am reminded of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote concerning the judiciary in the Federalist Papers of “the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.”[67] The ill humors surrounding our profession will give place to better information and deliberate reflection; I hope that this article can serve as a starting point for that better information. ________________________________ [1] The Late Show with David Letterman (CBS television broadcast, Jun. 29, 1995) (“Top Ten List, Dr. Kevorkian Tips for Summer: Number Four. Take a bunch of friends to McDonald’s and pour scalding coffee on each other.”) [2] Seinfield: The Maestro. [3] Id. [4] Id. [5] Id. [6] What many people are thinking right now. [7] We all know that politicians would never exploit the media’s twisted version of current events to further their own agenda, but it does happen occasionally. See 140 Cong. Rec. H9766 (Sept. 27, 1994) (statement of Rep. John Kasich, OH, R.) (“Everybody in America is fed up with being sued by everybody for everything. I just have to refer to the case of the lady that sued and won for having been scalded by a cup of coffee she bought in McDonald’s five minutes earlier.”) [ 8] No. CV 93 02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994). [9] Andrea Gerlin, A Matter of Degree: How a Jury Decided That a Coffee Spill Is Worth $2.9 Million, Wall St. J., Sept. 1, 1994, at A1. [10] Mark B. Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World: Images, Issues, and Idols in the Debate Over Tort Reform, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. 701, 718 (1997); Hot Coffee Spill Worth Cool Award, McDonald’s May Fork Over $2.9 Million, Denv. Post, Aug. 19, 1994, at A12. [11] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 718. [12] Rick Van Warner, The Legal Wheel of Fortune is Spinning Out of Control, Nation’s Restaurant News, Sept. 12, 1994, at 47 (“[D]oesn’t common sense count for anything anymore? Is it really McDonald’s fault that a customer decided to take the lid off a full, hot cup of coffee while she was behind the wheel of an auto?”); George F. Will, Elevating Newt, Depreciating Chesty, and Other Wonders of 1994, Newsweek, Dec. 26, 1994, at 134 (“A jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself when, in a moving car, leaving a McDonald’s with a cup of coffee between her legs, she spilled it.”); Java Jive, Miami Herald, Aug. 27, 1994, at 30A (“Yet she opened it in a car and prepared to drive hardly the safest plan for drinking any hot beverage.”). [13] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 718. [14] Id. [15] Id. [16] Id. [17] Third degree burns are burns that penetrate the dermis (skin) and go down to the underlying tissue. See Webster’s New Explorer Medical Dictionary, 698 (Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA, 1999). Go to www.google.com and click on “Images” and type in “third-degree burns.” After you stop dry-heaving at these pictures, please return to reading this article. [18] Keith H. Hammonds, McDonald’s Hot Coffee Gets Her Cool Cash, BusinessWeek (Sept. 5, 1994). [19] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 718. [20] Debridement is defined as the “surgical removal of lacerated, devitalized, or contaminated tissue” or, more simply, “the removal of dead tissue to expose living tissue.” Webster’s New Explorer Medical Dictionary, 161. “Debridement is the process of removing dead skin and foreign or waste material from the burned area” and “is normally a very painful process.” DeMary v. United States, 982 F.Supp. 1101, 1105 n.4 (D. S.C. 1997). [21] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 718-19; Gregory Nathan Hoole, In the Wake of Seemingly Exorbitant Punitive Damage Awards America Demands Caps on Punitive Damages—Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?, 22 J. Contemp. L. 459, 470 (1996). [22] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 718. [23] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Hoole, Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?, 22 J. Contemp. L. at 470. [24] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1. [25] Id. [26] Id. [27] Id. [28] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 719. [29] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Hoole, Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?, 22 J. Contemp. L. at 471. [30] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 719. [31] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 719. [32] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 719. [33] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 719. [34] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 719. [35] Consumer News, Large Award Chills Restaurant Serving Hot Coffee, 7 Loy. Consumer L. Rep. 2, 2 (1994); Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Hoole, Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?, 22 J. Contemp. L. 470-71. [36] Consumer News, Large Award Chills Restaurant Serving Hot Coffee, 7 Loy. Consumer L. Rep. 2, 2 (1994); Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1. [37] Consumer News, Large Award Chills Restaurant Serving Hot Coffee, 7 Loy. Consumer L. Rep. 2, 2 (1994); Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1. [38] See Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 720-21. [39] Id. at 719. [40] Id. at 719-20; Ralph Nader & Wesley J. Smith, No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America, at 270 (1996) (quoting the Liebeck transcript). [41] Nader & Smith, No Contest, at 270 (quoting the Liebeck transcript). [42] See Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 719-20. [43] Id. at 720; Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1. [44] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 720; Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1. [45] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 720. [46] Consumer News, 7 Loy. Consumer L. Rep. 2, 2 (1994); Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1. [47] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1. [48] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 720-21. [49] Nader & Smith, No Contest, at 271 (quoting the Liebeck transcript). [ 50] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 721. [51] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 722. [52] Consumer News, 7 Loy. Consumer L. Rep. at 2; Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Hoole, Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?, 22 J. Contemp. L. at 471; Hoole, Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?, 22 J. Contemp. L. at 471. [53] Consumer News, 7 Loy. Consumer L. Rep. at 2; Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., at A1; Hoole, Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?, 22 J. Contemp. L. at 471. [54] Gerlin, A Matter of Degree, Wall St. J., Sept. 1, 1994, at A1. [55] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 721. [56] 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994). [57] Id. [58] Id. [59] Greenlee, Kramer v. Java World, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. at 722. [60] Id.; Hot Coffee Spill Worth Cool Award, Denv. Post, Aug. 19, 1994, at A12. [61] Hot Coffee Spill Worth Cool Award, Denv. Post, Aug. 19, 1994, at A12. [62] Daniel J. Shapiro, Punitive Damages, 43 La. B.J. 252, 254 n.1 (1995). [63] Nader & Smith, No Contest, at 272 (1996) (quoting the Liebeck transcript). [64] Shapiro, Punitive Damages, 43 La. B.J. at 254 n.1. [65] See Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case; Burger Chain Sued After Boy's Ordeal, Cambridge Evening News, 23 June 2007, http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/huntingdon/2007/06/23/adb8f585-0793-480b-a68d-445233dba941.lpf [66] McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 651, 658-59 (7th Cir. 1998); Holowaty v. McDonald's Corp., 10 F.Supp.2d 1078, 1081 (D. Minn. 1998). [67] The Federalist Papers No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton). |
Even if it is her fault that she spilled the coffee (although she spilled the coffee while doing something that McDonald's could have expected someone to do), it is not her fault that McDonald's served their coffee so hot that it would cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. It is not her fault that McDonald's knew that the coffee was causing burns and didn't do anything about it. The fact is McDonald's kept the coffee at a level it knew was dangerous. It refused to make any changes despite the fact it was causing injuries. They got called on it and paid in court. |
 McDonald's knew that as many as 700 people per year were being injured by their product, yet did absolutely nothing to prevent further injuries. They accepted the liability as a calculated risk. In the end, all the warnings in the world would not have made the product any safer. Only by reducing the temperature of their coffee to 160° did they significantly reduce the risk of injury from their product. Frankly, I think that the callousness and lack of civility displayed herein is a far more indicative microcosm of the societal ills in America than the McDonald's case is a microcosm of the American legal system. To the contrary, the McDonald's case should serve as a shining example of how the legal system has built-in mechanisms to stay in-check. The original jury's award of $2.7 million was reduced by the judge to $480,000 on the basis of the enormity of the initial judgment. There's one correction of the process. The final settlement is estimated to be a fraction of the amended award. There's another correction of the process. The woman only ever sought to be reimbursed for her medical expenses. In the end, that's probably all she ever got, but we may never know, as the exact settlement terms were never disclosed. The McDonald's case is a good case. It's just too bad that there are far too many people who use a distorted representation of the case instead of the factual account. |
Just in the interest of accuracy: It was 700 people filed reports with McDonald's saying that they were burned between 1982 and 1992. I don't think that it was 700 per year. The coffee was closer to 40 degrees above the temperature of a normal cup of coffee. I know that this is a bit nitpicky, but there are already enough erroneous facts floating around. Also, for everyone that was saying that the woman was at fault, the court and the jury agree with you. The woman was found to be 20% liable for her injuries and the damages she was awarded were reduced by that amount. McDonald's lost because it knowingly and intentionally put a product out there that even if it was used in a correct manner could cause severe injuries. |
I know someone who politely asked for reimbursement of under $1000 for medical expenses relating to a tainted food product. The company told her to FOAD. She pretty much has to sue to get back her out of pocket costs. She'll probably have to tack on any available pain and suffering or punitive stuff just to have enough to cover the attorney. |
Not pouring hot coffee on them? Coffee is supposed to be hot. If it isn't, it sucks. If you get hot coffee on you, yes, it'll hurt. It might even cause severe harm. But that's a risk you take when you order coffee. We cannot remove all risk from life. If the idea of getting burned by coffee worries you, instead of thinking about how you're going to sue, how about drink cold drinks instead? |
It was hot because the customers wanted it that way. Tough shit if the lady got burned. The problem here is not McDonalds...it is that people are not responsible for their own actions. The legal profession has truly fucked our country: Lawyers have turned the business world it into a litigious minefield. They have priced healthcare out of the reach of the average person by turning the healtcare system into a lawsuit lottery. Fucked us on our auto insurance premiums with junk lawsuits. Turning the law into something that the average person can not resonably be expected to understand and has to hire an expensive lawyer to decipher. |
Either you haven't been paying attention or you're not very bright. Should people suffer injury from drinking coffee? Because that's exactly what would happen if they drank it at that temperature. Accept risks? If a company sold you a faulty weapon that blew your hand off, would you chalk it up to "life risks"? 
|
I loved the label I saw on an extension cord once. It read something like,"chewing on this extension cord may cause lead poisoning." I mean, damn,if you are chewing on an extension cord, you might find out that lead is going to be the least of your worries! ( I didn't even know extension cords had any lead in them.) |
|
|
A question for the lawyers here: If the coffee had been at the industry average temperature of hot served liquids, and she had burned herself causing first and second degree burns, would you still think that McDonalds would be legally liable for her injuries? What if the burns became infected with staph and killed the woman within 5 days? |
If we are talking about the normal 130-140 degree range, then I don't think that McDonald's would be legally liable. A reasonable person would expect the coffee to be that hot and that temperature is not typically hot enough to cause severe burns. Furthermore, since that is the industry standard pretty much, there should be no reports that people are burning themselves on the coffee. There is no reason that McDonald's should have reasonably anticipated her suffering first and second degree burns and later dying. If we are talking about the industry average being 185 degrees where that coffee was, I think it is a little more problematic. It is still hot enough that it can cause severe burns very very quickly. There would probably be reports of people burning themselves on the coffee so McDonald's would know that it was dangerous and causing injuries. I think that this would really turn more on whether the court believes that the person assumed the risk of coffee that hot because all coffee is served that hot or if it is just an unreasonably dangerous product no matter what. I still think that McDonald's isn't found liable since they are conforming with the industry average and a reasonable person would expect the coffee to be that hot but it would be closer. Basically, if they are following the standard of the industry without prior notice of any harm, then I don't think that they should be found liable. If they are following the industry average but people have burned themselves before, I still think that they should not be liable for the burns since all coffee is that hot and the person knew exactly what to expect. I think that it is a tougher call for the courts though. |
Thank you, sir. Then the case makes perfect sense the way it turned out. Yeah, the judgement may seem excessive but if I burned my penis I'd want a lot of compensation as well. 
|