Federal Laws based on rumors?

M

Massan

New member
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tortmyths14aug14,0,2326040.story?track=tothtml

"The irony about the McDonald's case is that it actually, in my view, was a meaningful and worthy lawsuit," George Washington University's Turley said. Yet advocates and pundits have "made it synonymous with court abuse."

Well I burned my hand with hot water when I was getting ready for a shower, according to that guy I guess I can sue the water company cause its "meaningful and worthy of lawsuit".
 
If I remember reading the story, the McLawsuit was actually brought because the woman had complained that the lid wasn't on, and the server jammed it on in a way that it damaged the cup (or something like that)...

Still think that it was a fairly frivolous suit, myself...
 
Well, according to what I heard about that lawsuit, damages were awarded on the basis that McDonald's was serving its coffee well above the temperature that was standard in the industry -- something like 180 degrees -- and had already had complaints of injuries (probably less severe than this woman's) and persisted in serving the coffee that hot.

Why they did so is anyone's guess. Perhaps they were trying to guard against consumer complaints that the coffee was cold by the time people got it back to the office or something. At any rate, as I was told, the damages precipitated from the fact that they had knowledge that people were getting burned by their coffee but they continued to serve it as hot as they did.

I feel that the woman should not have gotten money from McDonald's nonetheless, because it's true she put the coffee cup between her own damned legs! Was it her contention that if only McDonald's had served the coffee at 120 degrees instead of 180, she would have been just fine with having it in her lap? Because if not -- if she would have objected to it at any "hot" temperature spilling on her crotch -- then it should not have mattered what temperature McDonald's served it at.

-blackmind
 
Since obviously no-one here bothered

to actually READ the article, still less bother to do any research on their own because it might upset their narrow mindsets, here is the relevant excerpt:

"Trial testimony showed that at 180 to 190 degrees, McDonald's coffee was much hotter than that served by other restaurants or by people in their homes. The fast-food chain had received at least 700 complaints about hot coffee in the previous decade and had paid more than half a million dollars in settlements, according to trial testimony cited by the Wall Street Journal.

Liebeck's injuries were hardly minor. She suffered third-degree burns on her thighs and groin area, was hospitalized for a week and had to undergo painful skin grafts. Before filing a lawsuit, she wrote McDonald's requesting that it lower the temperature of its coffee and cover her uninsured medical bills and incidental costs of about $20,000. McDonald's offered $800.
 Later, as the case neared trial, a mediator recommended that McDonald's pay a settlement of $225,000. The company refused.

Jurors ultimately awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and about $2.7 million in punitive damages. "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company," one of the jurors told the Journal. "Their callous disregard was very upsetting," another said."

For those who couldn't manage 3 paragraphs, a summary:

1. McDonalds KNEW it's coffee was much hotter than normal serving temp;

2. McDonalds KNEW its customers had been burned by that excessively hot coffee;

3. McDonalds had ALREADY paid judgments for lawsuits from its excessively hot coffee;

4. McDonalds REFUSED to lower the temperature of its coffee;

5. McDonalds REFUSED to pay Ms. Liebeck's medical costs after she received THIRD-DEGREE BURNS trying to get the lid off her coffee to add milk and sugar.

NOTE: Contrary to the mendacious drivel mindlessly copied and sent all over the internet and believed by credulous cretins, she was NOT driving and the car was parked.

Now perhaps all the resident legal luminaries can explain:

1. How Ms. Liebeck could possibly be at fault on these facts; and

2. Why we should subsidize callous and irresponsible corporations by depriving their victims of FULL and fair compensation for injuries?

Inquiring minds want to know........
 
Applying the principles of comparative liability, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to US$160,000. In addition, they awarded her US$2.7 million in punitive damages.
However, the judge reduced punitive damages to US$480,000; thus Liebeck was awarded US$640,000 in total. Both McDonald's and Liebeck appealed, and in December 1994, the two came to a confidential settlement, the amount of which is secret, but is believed to be approximately equal to the amount of the final judgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck#Settlement

if McDonalds had settled for $20,000 the would have been way ahead.....lol
 
ok, I bet THIS is where the gun comes in!

maybe while she was driving, she hit a deer that a hunter was tracking, saving himt he trouble and making for a goood story.

Perhaps, as it turns out, the lawyer was a CCW advocate in California, and is now making his final push, so we should start a letter-writing campaign.

Wait, no. I bet that a Gun was found in her coffee and now she is sueing for that!


Surely this is gun related somehow :rolleyes:
 
Coffee is hot, everyone knows this. Some coffee is hotter. The real issue I think is the flimsy cups that it is served in. I think this woman is a freaking dumbarse for putting a cup of scalding liquid inbetween her legs to begin with. That's just ASKING to spill whatever you are trying to open.
 
Here in Milwaukee, the city health codes require restaurants to heat coffee to at least 165 degrees.

Back in 1992 I was stripping paint from a built-in cabinet, and using a paint stripper that was new on the market. The label said to wear rubber gloves. I wore latex gloves, which the stripper ate through. I got the stuff all over my hands and tried to wash it off. Since it contained a lot of sodium, that only made things worse.

My hands were so swollen and blistered that I couldn't even close them to make half a fist.

I took pictures of my hands, and sent them along with a letter to the manufacturer, suggesting that they put more explicit cautions on the packaging. I made it clear that I was not looking to sue them.

They called for more information so as to figure out what to change on the label. They also paid my emergency room costs.

That's how McDonalds should have handled it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top