Those Darn Frivolous Lawsuits - McDonald's Coffee case

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.