Those Darn Frivolous Lawsuits - McDonald's Coffee case

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
Here's the WHOLE story - note that when you hear ALL the facts, it doesn't sound quite so frivolous anymore.

Note that she initially offered to settle for $20,000, then got 2.9 million dollars at trial, but the final verdict after appeal was $640,000 - and she didn't get that in the end:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b77256026e6.htm

http://www2.bc.cc.ca.us/gdumler/Eng 1A Online/Editorials & Articles/mcdonalds_coffee_lawsuit.htm

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants.

"McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle."

McDonald’s serves its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees, compared with coffee made at home, which has a temperature of 135 to 140 degrees.

"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, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

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 . . .
 

Okiewan

Admin
Dec 31, 1969
29,555
2,237
Texas
The fact remains... she knew it was hot and didn't take reasonable care to avoid getting burned. Had the Mc employee dumped it on her? Yup.

It like suing Kingston because you put your face in the grill.
 

Jaybird

Apprentice Goon
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Mar 16, 2001
6,452
0
Charlestown, IN
Lesson 1....
Groins make for bad cup holders while driving.

Lesson 2....
Realize that if you are but a simple consumer, you do NOT have to use your brain. Let your lawyer do that for you.

Lesson 3....
Redistribution of wealth is always easier taken when you can show how the more wealthy of the two parties can afford it. Which is precisely why our tax system is so out of balance...the leftist never lets the chance slip by to explain how the more wealthy really don't need that much money.
 

Patman

Pantless Wonder
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Dec 26, 1999
19,774
0
Okiewan said:
It like suing Kingston because you put your face in the grill.
Or in Thump's case putting your hand on the grill to see if it's hot :)
 

trial_07

Play with gravity
~SPONSOR~
Apr 26, 2004
1,430
0
I agree with Okie! Now she knows that coffee belongs in a cup. Why should people drink colder coffees because a single woman got burned? I have a friend who works at Mc Donalds and she got burned with barbecue sauce, she didn't sue anybody cause it was HER mistake! Sueing is becoming a national sport today, I can't believe it!
 

HajiWasAPunk

Member
Aug 5, 2005
807
0
Okiewan said:
The fact remains... she knew it was hot and didn't take reasonable care to avoid getting burned. Had the Mc employee dumped it on her? Yup.

It like suing Kingston because you put your face in the grill.

lol, for real.

These type of lawyers are a joke. I know we all have rights but the money they waste is a sham and sometimes it's an obvious wrong in spite of the "facts".
 

MrLuckey

Fire Marshall Ed
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Feb 9, 2000
3,718
0
I have to wonder how much $$ made its way into lawyers pockets? That right there is the #1 reason for these frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers take these cases for no fee and 1/3rd of any judgement, if people had to pay out of their own pocket and maybe end up in the hole things would play out differently. Bunch of vultures :(
 

thumbs

Tony 'da Rat
Oct 16, 2000
2,484
1
Turn down the heat and problem is solved. I don't believe Burger King, Jack-in-the-box, Wendys and the other are having this reaccuring law suites.
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
1: We don't know how much she got - if you actually read the post,, Okie, you'd have seen that she finally settled for an undisclosed amount.

This is also very common with large verdicts. My office has been sitting on a $233,000.00 verdict for over a year and we haven't gotten a penny from the insurance co. yet. Their best offer is $150,000.00. When the Plaintiff gets hungry enough, they usually settle for LESS than the verdict.

2: Do you guys even understand the concept of punitive damages?

The verdict was for $160,000.00 in actual damages. I am sure that her meds for skin grafts cost that much.

The remainder of the verdict was punitives to PUNISH McDonalds so they take steps to change the problem.

Why do we punish McDonalds? Two reasons:

1: Their coffee had seriously burned 700 people in 10 years and they did nothing about it. Further, their witness testified that they were going to continue to do nothing about it.

2: Their coffee is served 20 degrees higher than other restaurants. Apparently that 20 degrees makes a difference because . . .

As thumbs said, "Turn down the heat and problem is solved. I don't believe Burger King, Jack-in-the-box, Wendys and the other are having this reaccuring law suites."

If there had been prior steps taken by McDonalds to solve the recurring burns problem, there would have been no judgment against them or a much smaller one.

As to the money in the lawyer's pockets, likely 40% since it went to trial.

Of course, it was 40% of less than $480,000.00, so maybe $150,000.00.

I'd guess it took something like 2-3 years to get to the final settlement, and it's likely that the amount of work they put in meant that the case was not exactly a windfall.
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
3 other things.

1: I would be curious to see what you critics would actually do if a similar thing happened to you and your privates were permanently scarred and disfigured - and perhaps rendered unusable - because the company was serving the coffee 10-20% hotter than ALL other companies.

I'm quite sure you would just drop it and chalk it up to your own stupidity like you say she should have. Sure. Yea right.

2: The large verdicts you complain of are the results of a jury hearing the evidence and granting the verdict. If it was a truly frivolous case, they should have given her NOTHING. The jury is specifically instructed by the judge at every trial that they are not to consider what the attorneys say as evidence.

Plus the Judge didn't grant summary judgment against the Plaintiff, so he is to "blame" as well.

Thus, your complaints about large, "frivolous" verdicts should be primarily directed at the jury and the judge, not at the Plaintiff.

3: The attorney gets a large portion of the money because he provides a service - under contract with the client - and there are relatively few people who can provide the service.

College and law school cost me $160,000.00.

If you don't want to sign the contract and pay the attorney because you think he's not worth the money, then quit complaining and REPRESENT YOURSELF the next time you have a legal problem. Lots of people in prison do it and they are sometimes successful. I personally know someone who got their conviction overturned -and that's darn near impossible in a criminal case.

Of course, the prisoners have LOTS of time on their hands for research and writing, but YOU probably don't.
 

BadgerMan

Mi. Trail Riders
Jan 1, 2001
2,479
10
2: Do you guys even understand the concept of punitive damages?

Yep I do, but you don’t. It’s the same as trying to tax a corporation. It just ends up being part of their operating cost structure which gets passed along to the consumer in their pricing. We are all paying more for coffee now so that a handful of lawyers can drive expensive automobiles.

The worst, IMO, was the not so publicized class action suit against Voice of America Radio for sex discrimination in their hiring practices (508 million bucks to 1100 “victims”). I have a relative who was included in the list of victims. She suffered greatly after submitting a resume’ in response to an advertised opening and she never even received a response. Man, did VOA pay for all the suffering they inflicted. Oh wait, that is a federally funded entity……….that means that our tax dollars paid for all the pain, suffering, and expensive new cars! Needless to say, the system is broken.

Frankly, I like McDonanld’s coffee mostly because it’s always hotter than billy hell. There’s nothing worse than a damn lukewarm cup of overpriced Tarbucks coffee.

Yeah, your crotch does not make for a good cup holder and a lawnmower is a bad choice as a hedge trimmer. :think:
 

robwbright

Member
Apr 8, 2005
2,283
0
Four other things:

1: There are plenty of law schools - probably one near you.

If you want to live in Washington, D.C. or N.Y or even Charleston, WV, and work 70-100 hours a week for 7-8 years (at an average $80-100,000.00/yr) so you can then make partner and make the "big money", then by all means, go ahead and go to law school.

Or, you can live in a small town, work 40-50 hours a week and make $28,000.00 a year like I am. BTW, my boss made $60,000.00 last year and he's been doing this for 27 years. I suspect many of you have salaries in the range of my boss's and mine - and many of you probably didn't go to school for 7 years to make that salary. So don't give me the "attorneys are thieves" complaints. I'm not hearing it.

Hypothetical situations

2: Ski resorts - should they post WARNINGS giving people an idea of how difficult each slope is? If they don't put up warnings and 700 people get seriously injured on one particular slope - (because of those people's own "stupidity" in not checking out the difficulty of each slope on their own), should the ski resort be liable for any of those injuries? Or AT LEAST be willing to post a warning that the slope is a double black diamond?

3: Motocross track - if a local track (with no warnings) is open to all classes of riders and 700 people get serious injuries in one particular Expert rhythm section (because of their own stupidity in "going for it" even though they're not experts) might it be a good idea for the track to either

A: post a warning;
B: limit the track to A class races; OR
C: change/remove the rhythm section?

4: McDonalds - Would it be acceptable for them to serve the coffee at 1000 degrees without a warning that it was extremely hot? After all, it would still be the customer's fault if they spill it on themselves. . .

McDonalds was serving coffee that the jury found was inherently dangerous compared to the rest of the industry and McDonald's wasn't willing to do anything to remedy the situation - even after 700 serious injuries. That is where the liability lies.

And yes, the woman was partially negligent and that negligence (20%) was acknowledged in the final verdict.
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
Riddle me this, Rob: If McDonald's coffee was unreasonably hot, how come they were selling 1 billion cups per year?


You seem to feel that people who buy the product over and over and over again are just stupid and need the protection of lawyers, juries and courts.

I feel that if McDonald's is selling 1 billion units a year, they are giving the people what the people want. If the coffee was 1000 degrees, they would not be selling 1 billion of them. They found a mix their customers were happy with. IMO, the courts should stay out of the way. McDonald's will respond to the market if the market feels its coffee is too hot.
 

bsmith

Wise master of the mistic
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 28, 2001
1,782
0
Their coffee is served 20 degrees higher than other restaurants. Apparently that 20 degrees makes a difference because . . .

If they are selling a Billion cups of Coffee, then yes it is a very good recipe and at a temp that a Billion freaking people prefer. If 700 out of a Billion cups burn, that's less than .0000007%. I can't fathom that small of a percentage!

4: McDonalds - Would it be acceptable for them to serve the coffee at 1000 degrees without a warning that it was extremely hot? After all, it would still be the customer's fault if they spill it on themselves. . .
No, now your just being dumb! At that temp the coffe would melt the little cup and they would have to lower said temp in order to serve said coffee.
 

BadgerMan

Mi. Trail Riders
Jan 1, 2001
2,479
10
dirt bike dave said:
McDonald's will respond to the market if the market feels its coffee is too hot.

:nod:
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
bsmith said:
If they are selling a Billion cups of Coffee, then yes it is a very good recipe and at a temp that a Billion freaking people prefer. If 700 out of a Billion cups burn, that's less than .0000007%. I can't fathom that small of a percentage!

Rob indicated the 700 injuries were over a 10 year period. So that would be approximately 70 injuries per billion cups. So add another 0 in your string.


If you scald your privates using a product that is safely used 999,999,930 times per year, you are a dumbass. No amount of lawyers and juries can help you escape that fact.
 

bsmith

Wise master of the mistic
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jun 28, 2001
1,782
0
Thanks for copying my post DB Dave ;)

On a side not, my Wife has lost yet another Dr due to the increase cost of Malpractice insurance. Yes, I blame the frivolous malpractice lawsuits for all this. This was her 4th! One moved to Idaho, one to Texas, and one to the VA, and went to the ER.

If your an overweight, alcoholic, with a stressful job, chain smoker, and never exercise don't you think you have some responsibility for your own health! Not in Washington state, it was his Dr's fault! Lawsuit found the Dr guilty of malpractice for not prescribing asprin to help, prevent for a heartattack! This was a 2 week trail I was a juror on, and I was 1 of 2 that voted not guilty!
 

XRpredator

AssClown SuperPowers
Damn Yankees
Aug 2, 2000
13,510
19
I went to McDonalds this morning.

I don't drink coffee, so I got a large coke. When I'm driving, I like to do like most rednecks and put the cup between my legs up near my nether region. I think McDonalds uses colder ice than everyone else. I have frostbite on my privates.

I think I need representation. (by the way, when you put it into percentages, those 700 burns, it does sound way low)

And Rob, if you are only pulling down 26k a year, you need to find a better place to be a lawyer, man, or start doing legal work for local government entities. I think we dole out at bare minimum that much in a year here at the Highway District, and that's not even dealing with any lawsuits, just day to day stuff.

And I do agree with Rob on one point. Blame the juries.
 

BadgerMan

Mi. Trail Riders
Jan 1, 2001
2,479
10
And I do agree with Rob on one point. Blame the juries.

Can’t blame them.

The jury would never hear the case if it were not for the attorney.

No offense, but most jury members are just pawns IMO. All you have to do is watch the jury selection process sometime………….
 

XRpredator

AssClown SuperPowers
Damn Yankees
Aug 2, 2000
13,510
19
BadgerMan said:
Can’t blame them.

The jury would never hear the case if it were not for the attorney.
Yes, the attorneys will present the case to the jury, but if they had half a brain between the 12 of them we'd get some more common sense "awards".

and OJ would be in jail.
 
Top Bottom