It seems McDonalds customers aren't the only ones who file frivolous lawsuits

[Martin]

McDonald's themselves are getting in the act too...


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=13005502&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=MCDONALDS%20SUE%20CRITIC%20FOR%20%A315MILLION

 

[Moonbeam]

There was nothing whatsoever frivolous about the McDonalds law suit.

The McDonald's Coffee Case
Sorting through fact and fiction....

Myth: An opportunistic old woman launched a frivolous lawsuit when she spilled her McDonald's coffee on her lap.

Truth: Lieback was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car holding a coffee after purchasing it from a drive-through window of a McDonald's. When she opened the lid to add cream and sugar, she spilled the coffee.

The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body.

McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee.

McDonald's refused to pay the then 79-year-old woman's initial medical expenses totaling $11,000. McDonald's actually countered with an offer of $800. And they also refused to turn down the heat on their coffee. Left with $20,000 unpaid bills, she finally hired a lawyer.

A mediator later recommended the parties settle for $225,000. Again, McDonald's refused and the case went to trial.

McDonald's representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of other claims. A jury reduced the original verdict of $200,000 to $160,000 for contributory negligence - Liebeck spilled it on herself.

Based on McDonald's annual profits of more than $1 billion annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales, the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million.

A judge later reduced the $2.7 million jury award to $480,000. McDonald's later settled the case for an undisclosed amount, requesting the deal be kept sealed. Most major newspapers ignored the judge's reduction and the final outcome of the case.

Punitive damage awards are not currently allowed under Washington law. Juries undoubtedly return verdicts when faced with a large corporate defendant who has ignored reasonable pleas to resolve such situations or grievances.

In this case, McDonald's simply refused to turn down the heat, so the jury turned it up on McDonald's.

 

[Zebo]

We tend to miss lots of corporate "silencing" because we rather focus on the envy of that grandma who got 700K for coffee.


"I mean why should I have to slave away 40 hours a week for many years to make 700K while all this b1tch had to do was spill coffee on her self and it's TAX FREE?"

It sells.

I disagree with both cases. This dude is entiled to say it tastes like dog sh1t. As McDonalds is entiled to sell 100C coffee.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
We tend to miss lots of corporate "silencing" because we rather focus on the envy of that grandma who got 700K for coffee.


"I mean why should I have to slave away 40 hours a week for many years to make 700K while all this b1tch had to do was spill coffee on her self and it's TAX FREE?"

It sells.

I disagree with both cases. This dude is entiled to say it tastes like dog sh1t. As McDonalds is entiled to sell 100C coffee.

I hope MCD wins! Just purchased another 100 shares for one of the IRA accounts today.

<Bill Griffeth>special interests, Maria, special interests</Bill Griffeth>

Seriously though, I even agree with the dude myself. MCD fries are horrible.

 

[AndrewR]

I am sure that the woman in the McDonald's case was not the first to have ever been burned by coffee, both McDonald's and otherwise. I am also sure that it is patently stupid to open a cup of coffee over your lap while sitting in a moving car. The temperature of the coffee is not the issue to me; it's the brainiac who decided that cream and sugar are more important than personal safety.

McDonald's sells coffee. Coffee is served hot. Customers want hot coffee. Drive-thru coffee is sold in cups with lids to prevent spilling. Spilled coffee burns. Drinks spill more frequently in cars. And so on.

It is a sad story that this elderly woman was burned badly, but it is NOT MCDONALD'S FAULT. If I burn the roof of my mouth or my tongue on stuffed crust pizza, I am not going to sue Pizza Hut for "making the tomato sauce hot" by baking it, as I implicitly requested.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I am sure that the woman in the McDonald's case was not the first to have ever been burned by coffee, both McDonald's and otherwise. I am also sure that it is patently stupid to open a cup of coffee over your lap while sitting in a moving car. The temperature of the coffee is not the issue to me; it's the brainiac who decided that cream and sugar are more important than personal safety.

McDonald's sells coffee. Coffee is served hot. Customers want hot coffee. Drive-thru coffee is sold in cups with lids to prevent spilling. Spilled coffee burns. Drinks spill more frequently in cars. And so on.

It is a sad story that this elderly woman was burned badly, but it is NOT MCDONALD'S FAULT. If I burn the roof of my mouth or my tongue on stuffed crust pizza, I am not going to sue Pizza Hut for "making the tomato sauce hot" by baking it, as I implicitly requested.

I think if you read Moonbeam's post your conclusion will be a bit less cut-and-dry. I'd never heard the stuff in his post and it made me think a bit differently about the case. Civil law is very much unlike criminal law; McDonald's may not be at fault for burning the woman, but they were at fault for negligence.

 

[Zebo]

If I burn the roof of my mouth or my tongue on stuffed crust pizza, I am not going to sue Pizza Hut for "making the tomato sauce hot" by baking it, as I implicitly requested.

OMG This happens almost everytime I eat pizzas. They must have the highest heat capacitance in the universe. Slow down my wife tells me Man you think I could sue someone for my irresponsibilty..

Oooo ooo I just thought of something. they also get me fat, Double whammy.

<<<Thumbing though the Yellow Pages...Is it under Lawyer or Attoney?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There was nothing whatsoever frivolous about the McDonalds law suit.

The McDonald's Coffee Case
Sorting through fact and fiction....

Myth: An opportunistic old woman launched a frivolous lawsuit when she spilled her McDonald's coffee on her lap.

Truth: Lieback was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car holding a coffee after purchasing it from a drive-through window of a McDonald's. When she opened the lid to add cream and sugar, she spilled the coffee.

The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard. The woman, Stella Liebeck, underwent numerous skin-graft surgeries as a result of her third-degree coffee burns to her thighs and groin area. She had permanent scarring on more than 16 percent of her body.

McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns, many involving children. The company even ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati to turn down its coffee.

McDonald's refused to pay the then 79-year-old woman's initial medical expenses totaling $11,000. McDonald's actually countered with an offer of $800. And they also refused to turn down the heat on their coffee. Left with $20,000 unpaid bills, she finally hired a lawyer.

A mediator later recommended the parties settle for $225,000. Again, McDonald's refused and the case went to trial.

McDonald's representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of other claims. A jury reduced the original verdict of $200,000 to $160,000 for contributory negligence - Liebeck spilled it on herself.

Based on McDonald's annual profits of more than $1 billion annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales, the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million.

A judge later reduced the $2.7 million jury award to $480,000. McDonald's later settled the case for an undisclosed amount, requesting the deal be kept sealed. Most major newspapers ignored the judge's reduction and the final outcome of the case.

Punitive damage awards are not currently allowed under Washington law. Juries undoubtedly return verdicts when faced with a large corporate defendant who has ignored reasonable pleas to resolve such situations or grievances.

In this case, McDonald's simply refused to turn down the heat, so the jury turned it up on McDonald's.

Yet again another parroting of "facts" spammed on ambulance chaser websites far and wide.

Yeah, let's trust the the very source of the massive wave of frivolous lawsuits we are facing. That's the ticket!

The fact of the matter is, if you look up ANY gourmet coffee website, it will list the brewing and serving temps in the EXACT same range McDonald's served it at.

 

[Zebo]

Any opinion on this guys editorial Amused?

 

[ElFenix]

he said that they taste of paper. but when you look at what the lawyer said, it looks as though the critic made some unreported claims that are counter-factual and would be slander or libel.

this is the phrase:

thrown away within five minutes of being cooked if they have not been served and the oil is changed regularly.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Any opinion on this guys editorial Amused?

He has a right to his opinion. I never saw the editorial itself, but so long as it was presented as opinion, and not fact, I see nothing wrong with it within the laws of the US. But since it's in Italy, I have no idea what their laws are like.

What's next? Suing movie reviewers?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Any opinion on this guys editorial Amused?

He has a right to his opinion. I never saw the editorial itself, but so long as it was presented as opinion, and not fact, I see nothing wrong with it within the laws of the US. But since it's in Italy, I have no idea what their laws are like.

What's next? Suing movie reviewers?

Why they give sofball reviews and hardly pan any of the crap coming out of hollywood. You know the preverbial adjectives "Powerful" "Best xyz of the year" "The Perfect Family Film!" etc whores.

Wanna good review site? try, ruthlessreviews.com

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I am sure that the woman in the McDonald's case was not the first to have ever been burned by coffee, both McDonald's and otherwise. I am also sure that it is patently stupid to open a cup of coffee over your lap while sitting in a moving car. The temperature of the coffee is not the issue to me; it's the brainiac who decided that cream and sugar are more important than personal safety.

McDonald's sells coffee. Coffee is served hot. Customers want hot coffee. Drive-thru coffee is sold in cups with lids to prevent spilling. Spilled coffee burns. Drinks spill more frequently in cars. And so on.

It is a sad story that this elderly woman was burned badly, but it is NOT MCDONALD'S FAULT. If I burn the roof of my mouth or my tongue on stuffed crust pizza, I am not going to sue Pizza Hut for "making the tomato sauce hot" by baking it, as I implicitly requested.

I think if you read Moonbeam's post your conclusion will be a bit less cut-and-dry. I'd never heard the stuff in his post and it made me think a bit differently about the case. Civil law is very much unlike criminal law; McDonald's may not be at fault for burning the woman, but they were at fault for negligence.

I have read Moonbeam's post, and I've read the same information before. It does not change my opinion. Heating coffee does not amount to negligence -- it's called "beverage preparation". Negligence would be serving the coffee at that temperature without a lid on the cup. Thanks for the legal lesson, but I already went to law school.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thanks for the legal lesson, but I already went to law school
---------------------------------------------
So did the attorneys that won her case.

"But a closer look at the details of the case reveal: she was in a parked car and was in the passenger seat; the coffee she was drinking was 180-190 degrees, which McDonald's knew was nearly 50 degrees hotter than is fit for human consumption and it could burn through all layers of skin in a matter of seconds; and McDonald's knew that its coffee had previously burned more than 700 people, but refused to lower the temperature of its beverage."

"There had been over 700 prior incidents of injuries from McDonald?s coffee that had been reported to the company and were present in company documents. They ranged in severity from minor burns to third degree burns, and resulted in numerous claims, some settling for over $500,000. Several cases involved children.

Prior to the lawsuit, McDonald??s sold its coffee at 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Coffee you serve in your home is between 135 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Water that is found in your car radiator is 180 degrees Fahrenheit. At 190 degrees, it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn, while at 160 degrees it takes about 20 seconds.

The coffee inflicted third degree burns on Stella Liebeck's groin, inner thighs and buttocks, necessitating seven days in the hospital for extensive skin grafts and debridement treatment. Photographs vividly demonstrated the severity of these burns, which covered six percent of her body.

A McDonald?s executive testified that McDonald?s knew its coffee caused serious burns. McDonald?s also consciously decided not to warn people of the dangers concerning the temperature of its coffee and had no intention of changing that temperature."

 

[tcsenter]

There was nothing whatsoever frivolous about the McDonalds law suit.

Oh boy, here we go again...

Truth: Lieback was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car holding a coffee after purchasing it from a drive-through window of a McDonald's. When she opened the lid to add cream and sugar, she spilled the coffee.

Her fault, not McDonald's.

The simple accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of her body. She was treated in a hospital for a week. McDonald's served coffee 20 or so degrees hotter than the industry standard.

In fact this so-called "industry standard" was purely an invention of the plaintiff's attorneys.

It would be like claiming there is an "industry standard" patty weight for hamburgers, or an "industry standard" sodium content for chili, or an "industry standard" caffeine content for soda pop, or an "industry standard" number of ridges on a licorice stick. There is no such beast.

You could conceivably define a "median" or "average" coffee serving or brewing temperature, or a range of temperatures found in the industry, but not an "industry standard" because it does not exist. In the event that "recommended serving or brewing temperature", based on wide-ranging individual preferences, might be remotely construed to constitute an "industry standard", and it could not reasonably, but let us suppose for a moment that we live along with Moonbeam on Bizarro Superman's planet, this 'recommended' brewing or serving temperature is not defined to protect people from burns. This recommended brewing or serving temperature is defined wholly to achieve optimal flavor and aroma extraction from the coffee grounds.

IOW, Bunn doesn't preset its commercial brewers to the 'recommended' brewing temperature out of safety concerns, but because that's the temperature Bunn has determined to produce the best pot of coffee. It is worth noting that, in order to accomodate a range of individual preferences and coffee ground types, the brew temperature of Bunn commercial brewers is user-adjustable. If the brew temperature were preset for safety reasons, there would be no adjustment.

McDonald's sells one billion cups of coffee annually in no small part due to the widely-known fact that McDonald's serves it hotter. Hotter coffee is popular with travelers and commuters, not to mention life-long coffee drinkers who have somewhat become 'desensitized' to 'average' coffee temperatures. Hang out at any McDonald's and ask coffee drinkers why they prefer McDonald's, the answer is virtually always "because I like it hotter."

The so-called "industry standard" serving temperature fabricated by the plaintiff's law firm wasn't even derived from the 'industry'. The plaintiff paid a law student by the name of Danny Jarrett to go around the city sticking a thermometer in coffee served by various establishments.

In fact, evidence from 'the industry' contradicted the plaintiff's claims. The National Coffee Association stated that McDonald's coffee is within the accepted range of industry recommendations. The Mr. Coffee corporation told the Wall Street Journal that if customer complaints were any indication, industry recommend serving temperatures were probably too low. Millions of coffee drinkers simply prefer it hotter.

The 700 or so complaints of burns received by McDonald's over a 10 year period is an extremely minute fraction of the number of cups sold. Let us suppose the number of actual injuries were 10 times the number of complaints received by McDonald's. That is still a rate of one injury for every 1,428,571 cups of coffee sold. Is it possible there is one inordinately clumbsy idiot out of every million people? How about one inordinately clumbsy idiot out of every 10 million people? We could only be so fortunate if the number were actually that low!

Should General Motors be liable because some idiot slams his hand in the door of the car? Should Stanley Tools be liable because some dummy smashes his thumb off with one of their hammers?

A precise parallel to the plaintiff's argument would be to hold Stanley Tools liable because some idiot nearly cut his hand off with a utility knife. If Stanley wouldn't have made the blade so 'dangerously sharp', the injury would have been far less severe. The plaintiff might have only sliced 1/4-way through his tendons and nerves instead of all the way through them and to the bone if the blade were 20% less sharp?

Knives are sharp, coffee is hot, hammers are really hard. In the hands of total idiots, any of these things can produce 'unusually severe' injuries.

The jury in this case was swayed, not by the legal arguments, but once again, by the emotional aspects of the case. The jury felt sorry for the old bat, and they thought McDonald's attitude towards the old bat was 'unfeeling'. They did not believe McDonald's was "at fault", they were offended by McDonald's lack of sympathy for her. This isn't a legitimate legal basis for finding liability or fault.

Once again, a perfect example of emotion clouding judgement with absurd results.

 

[dmcowen674]

Hey TSC,

We finally agree on an issue.

 

[Nitemare]

If you can't beat em, join em...

that being said Mickey D's should have never changed the fry recipe. They used to have the bomb fries, now I would not even put them in the top 3.

Libeck can suck it as well. She's a friggin moron for spilling coffee on her groin. If anything Mickey D's should have paid for getting her tubes tied so she can not infect us with any more descendents of perhaps one of the stupidest people in America(Sorry Jacko and Tyson have permanent top spots)

<--I for one will be glad when you can countersue because the plaintiff is a friggin moron...

 

[DZip]

Two questions...

1. Why didn't she sue her grandson for causing her to spill the coffee since he was driving?
2. If I boil water to make instant coffee at home and burn myself, who can I sue?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: DZip
Two questions...

1. Why didn't she sue her grandson for causing her to spill the coffee since he was driving?
2. If I boil water to make instant coffee at home and burn myself, who can I sue?

1. He does not have a job and does not have millions of money
2. WooHoo! You lucky bastard. You get to sue the water company, the power company, and the coffeemaker manufacturer. You might want to sue the country in which it was made for more money.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DZip
Two questions...

1. Why didn't she sue her grandson for causing her to spill the coffee since he was driving?
2. If I boil water to make instant coffee at home and burn myself, who can I sue?

2. Obvisouly it would be whoever manufactured the appliance you heated the water in/on. The were obviously negligent in not having "safety" temperature settings. :Q

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Once again, a perfect example of emotion clouding judgement with absurd results
-----------------------------------------------------
Take a look at your post tcsenter and the ones that follow and you will see where the irrational emotionalism and absurd judgment is.

"There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned."

 

[Vic]

The only thing I know is that I can't get a goddamned hot cup of coffee anywhere anymore! :|

Oh yeah, and McD's had to change their fry recipe. Apparently, it contained artificial beef flavoring, and a lawyer representing some hindu and vegetarian groups in Seattle sued last year on the basis that the artificial flavoring offended them. McD's paid a $10 million dollar settlement to make it go away.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Vic
The only thing I know is that I can't get a goddamned hot cup of coffee anywhere anymore! :|

Oh yeah, and McD's had to change their fry recipe. Apparently, it contained artificial beef flavoring, and a lawyer representing some hindu and vegetarian groups in Seattle sued last year on the basis that the artificial flavoring offended them. McD's paid a $10 million dollar settlement to make it go away.

They offend me by not letting me get good fries. Where can I sue them?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
They offend me by not letting me get good fries. Where can I sue them?

The lawyer meetings for THAT class-action lawsuit are everyday at noon at your local Burger King.

 

[LunarRay]

Geepers! Here I thought issues of frivolity were handled by the court (judge) prior to any trial. An example might be: The court will grant respondent motion to dismiss if he does not see an issue of fact that should be determined by a jury and which, even if prooven true would not support the allegation. Like in the Moonbeam statement above: The temperature of the coffee was X degrees. etc. you've got to proove that. But, if prooven would that mean anything? All this junk is looked at prior to any trial. The plantiff allegation, the response to that the responses to the responses and so on. One can deduce from those what the likely strengths and weakness of the plantiff and respondent are and therefore, what the settlement hinged on.

So, res ipsa loquitor. Frivolity suggests without merit. Was the coffee hotter than the human lap area skin should be confronted with, or any other part of the skin organ for that matter? The merit exists in my mind without fact finding. However, the finder of fact (jury) need only determine if the coffee was as hot as alleged and at what temperature does harm occur. This assumes the issues normal to moving papers were litigated and uncontested facts were stipulated to.

Ok! Were is the attorney or law school grad to attack my little opine above.