@#$% law suits
Road Master
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 13
From: new jersey
Why do you think that there is always a settlement. Lawyers always workout a settlement, its how they run the game they never lose any money, they always win they take care of each other. Its one of the biggest scams going. You and I pay in the end.
Intermediate
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
The McDonald's lawsuit was filed only after the idiots at McDonald's refused to pay this lady's approx. $300 medical bill. This pissed her off enough that she got a lawyer, who discovered that McDonald's was serving coffee at temps between 200 and 205 degrees (not 220). She was also not the first burn victim. The lawyer asked the jury for five cents from every cup of coffee served by McDonald's in a two or three week period (I forgot which), and they gave it to her. An appellate court reduced the damages to around half a million dollars. This was entirely the fault of McDonald's; first for serving coffee hot enough to melt your skin, and second for being too stupid to pay this lady's dinky-*** medical bill. And before anyone asks, yes I have a law degree (currently an appellate judge; "you can fool just enough of the people to get elected if you're really lucky"!!)
Road Captain
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 620
Likes: 2
From: NJ
This was entirely the fault of McDonald's; first for serving coffee hot enough to melt your skin, and second for being too stupid to pay this lady's dinky-*** medical bill. And before anyone asks, yes I have a law degree (currently an appellate judge; "you can fool just enough of the people to get elected if you're really lucky"!!)
Since I'm not a lawyer and therefore not a learned practitioner of the Dark Arts, I need additional enlightenment as to why McDonald's should have paid the "dinky-***" medical bill? Right is right, and common sense is common sense, regardless of the dollar amount. The lady screwed up, and McDonald's was asked to foot the bill. In my opinion McD's rightfully refused to pay the bill, and the legal system them over the coals for it. I also fail to undertand why the woman was entitled to more than her $300 medical bills and perhaps legal and court costs (unless those other costs amounted to $499,700, which probably wouldn't surprise me).
Thank you for professing to have legal credentials, but they're irrelevant in my view. If you are indeed what you say you are, that only tells me that you understand how the system works, and how to work it; it doesn't necessarily say anything about the system ensuring justice or operating with common sense all the time.
If there's more to the story, please share it. So far I'm not convinced of McD's "entire" responsibility.
Intermediate
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
This was not the first incident of someone being burned by McDonald's coffee. It was more like the thirtieth. Like it or not, in our society, if you provide a product or service, you take on a responsibility to do so in the safest manner possible. Of course the lady should have been more careful. But EVERYBODY has spilled something on them in a car at one time or another. For 100 years+ our legal system has put the burden on the "deep pocket" for easily foreseeable accidents that are caused by, or made worse by, their product. Every company that markets anything in this country knows that. That is why I said it was "entirely" McDonald's fault. Looking back, I should not have used that particular adjective. "Mostly" would have been more accurate.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,616
Likes: 4,440
From: anacoco, la
This was not the first incident of someone being burned by McDonald's coffee. It was more like the thirtieth. Like it or not, in our society, if you provide a product or service, you take on a responsibility to do so in the safest manner possible. Of course the lady should have been more careful. But EVERYBODY has spilled something on them in a car at one time or another. For 100 years+ our legal system has put the burden on the "deep pocket" for easily foreseeable accidents that are caused by, or made worse by, their product. Every company that markets anything in this country knows that. That is why I said it was "entirely" McDonald's fault. Looking back, I should not have used that particular adjective. "Mostly" would have been more accurate.
so using your words, if i go through the drive through and then get in a wrech while trying to eat my burger, its their fault. if i buy a cell phone, use it while driving, and get in a wreck, its their fault? after all, they have a responsibility to provide that service in 'the safest manner possible', and it is easily 'foreseeable' that one would get in an accident using their product in this manner.....
woo hoo, lets sue them all!
Tourer
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, florida
Advanced
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
From: Akron, Ohio
OK, see if I have this right: This was entirely the fault of McDonald's, meaning that the "victim" bore no responsibility whatsoever for having spilled the coffee on herself in the first place. Am I correct?
Since I'm not a lawyer and therefore not a learned practitioner of the Dark Arts, I need additional enlightenment as to why McDonald's should have paid the "dinky-***" medical bill? Right is right, and common sense is common sense, regardless of the dollar amount. The lady screwed up, and McDonald's was asked to foot the bill. In my opinion McD's rightfully refused to pay the bill, and the legal system them over the coals for it. I also fail to undertand why the woman was entitled to more than her $300 medical bills and perhaps legal and court costs (unless those other costs amounted to $499,700, which probably wouldn't surprise me).
Thank you for professing to have legal credentials, but they're irrelevant in my view. If you are indeed what you say you are, that only tells me that you understand how the system works, and how to work it; it doesn't necessarily say anything about the system ensuring justice or operating with common sense all the time.
If there's more to the story, please share it. So far I'm not convinced of McD's "entire" responsibility.
Since I'm not a lawyer and therefore not a learned practitioner of the Dark Arts, I need additional enlightenment as to why McDonald's should have paid the "dinky-***" medical bill? Right is right, and common sense is common sense, regardless of the dollar amount. The lady screwed up, and McDonald's was asked to foot the bill. In my opinion McD's rightfully refused to pay the bill, and the legal system them over the coals for it. I also fail to undertand why the woman was entitled to more than her $300 medical bills and perhaps legal and court costs (unless those other costs amounted to $499,700, which probably wouldn't surprise me).
Thank you for professing to have legal credentials, but they're irrelevant in my view. If you are indeed what you say you are, that only tells me that you understand how the system works, and how to work it; it doesn't necessarily say anything about the system ensuring justice or operating with common sense all the time.
If there's more to the story, please share it. So far I'm not convinced of McD's "entire" responsibility.
"McDonald's quality control managers specified that its coffee should be served at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit. Liquids at that temperature can cause third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds. Such burns require skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments to heal, and the resulting scarring is typically permanent."
"Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was) and needed two years of treatment and rehabilitation, including skin grafts. McDonald's refused an offer to settle with her for $20,000 in medical costs."
"While Stella was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, this amount was reduced by 20 percent (to $160,000) because the jury found her 20 percent at fault. Where did the rest of the $2.9 million figure in? She was awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages -- but the judge later reduced that amount to $480,000, or three times the "actual" damages that were awarded."
"The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?"
The article also say that 180 degrees is the recommended temperature for serving coffee. I wonder if the coffee is that hot how can people people drink it without burning themselves???
Info here
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Times Harley-Davidson Chucked Tradition Out the Window
Verdad Gallardo
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
Ultimate HDF Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 6,642
Likes: 48
From: Ogden, UT
The McDonald's lawsuit was filed only after the idiots at McDonald's refused to pay this lady's approx. $300 medical bill. This pissed her off enough that she got a lawyer, who discovered that McDonald's was serving coffee at temps between 200 and 205 degrees (not 220). She was also not the first burn victim. The lawyer asked the jury for five cents from every cup of coffee served by McDonald's in a two or three week period (I forgot which), and they gave it to her. An appellate court reduced the damages to around half a million dollars. This was entirely the fault of McDonald's; first for serving coffee hot enough to melt your skin, and second for being too stupid to pay this lady's dinky-*** medical bill. And before anyone asks, yes I have a law degree (currently an appellate judge; "you can fool just enough of the people to get elected if you're really lucky"!!)
The trial took place from August 817, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott.[15] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180190 °F (8288 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonalds served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.[16]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[5] However, this contradicts the company's own research that showed customers actually intend to consume the coffee while driving to their destination.[1