At first it sounds outrageous - obviously if you spill hot coffee on yourself, you are to blame. But then I read the details of the case. For example, the coffee was so hot that she received some BAD burns. She had to get skin grafts! And McDonald's KNEW that their coffee was at a dangerously hot temperature - hotter than most other places keep their coffee. But they hadn't done anything to correct the problem because they make more money by selling hotter coffee.
2007-01-12 06:03:00 · 17 answers · asked by L T 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Even asking this question is dangerous. It's nearly impossible to play "armchair juror" based on such a limited set of facts that were provided by the media as an example of excess litigation.
There are a number of websites dedicated to the "true facts" of the case, including sites where jurors (remember, the case was in the heart of texas, and the jurors and the judge weren't exactly ultra liberal, bleeding hearts) talked about their original skepticism, even unwillingness to give any money whatsoever, until ALL of the facts were presented.
Some of the facts:
(1) She was NOT driving. She did NOT put the coffee on the dash. The driver PULLED OVER to allow her to put cream and sugar in the coffee.
(2) McDonalds knew that the coffee was 20 degrees hotter than most of its competitors, and knew that a spill could cause 3d degree burns in less than 10 seconds. They knew of 700 reported burn cases, but failed to take any action to lower the temperature of the coffee (or, as they've done now, add cream and sugar for those requesting it in the drive thru).
(3) She had 3d degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs and perenium (look it up if you don't know where that is.) And had to have skin grafts. She was scarred over 16% of her body.
(4) She requested a $20,000 settlement to pay for medical bills. McDonalds refused.
(5) The jury found her 20% at fault, awarded $200K in compensatories (times 80%, which is $160K total), and $2.7 million in punitives against McDonalds for their conscious disregard of a known risk (two days' worth of gross coffee sales). That amount was reduced to $480K by the judge, or 3 times the amount of compensatories.
(6) The case was settled for even less in a confidential settlement agreement, to avoid an appeal.
(7) This wasn't in a liberal hippie place, but in Texas.
The "I heard" or "I think" rumors and speculation are what drive "tort reform." Learn the facts before forming a knee jerk opinion.
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
And here's a contrary view:
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
2007-01-12 06:23:31 · answer #1 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Actually, McDonald's had there coffee at a dangerous temperature which caused the excessive burns. If you spill coffee on yourself from your home coffee pot you will not get that bad of a burn - this woman suffered extensive damage.
Rather than admit that the did the wrong thing in keeping a liquid that hot and serving it to a customer who was not aware that it was "that" hot McDonald's tried to be a big corporate bully and take it to trial and loss their butt. Bummer for them - should have paid the settlement.
If I handed you a superheated cup of coffee without telling you I had heated it to three times normal serving temperature and you burned yourself on it then I am liable - yes you should have expected a hot cup of coffee but you did not expect a superheated one.
Yes I think the jury award was high - but that's juries for ya - they are an emotional lot. When they heard the facts they were most likely outraged that McDonald's took so little care over the welfare of their customers.
2007-01-12 06:29:13 · answer #2 · answered by Susie D 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely not. The coffee was actually at the temperature most frequently recommended by coffee makers for serving coffee (and not necessarily hotter than other restaurants served it). McDonald's served the customer demand for HOT coffee. It was never a secret to anyone that coffee is served hot and that spilling hot liquid on oneself can cause injury. It was not McDonald's fault that the woman spilled the coffee. It was not McDonald's fault that she was wearing clothing that held the hot liquid close to her skin.
There was no basis for a claim of negligence given the facts of the case and therefore no basis for the outcome - beyond the unjustifiable "she was seriously injured so SOMEBODY should pay for it".
2007-01-12 06:11:57 · answer #3 · answered by Fletch 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No. When you order HOT coffee, you expect it to be HOT. The lady made a moronic decision to put a HOT cup of coffe between her legs, rather than in a cup holder. Had she used a little common sense, this wouldn't have even been an issue.
If McDs had toned down the temperature people would then complain their coffee wasn't hot enough. People are never happy. It isn't a corporations duty to make sure you aren't a complete moron prior to selling you a cup of coffee.
2007-01-12 06:42:53 · answer #4 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
particular espresso is meant to be that warm. I artwork at a luxury house complicated that serves loose espresso to our citizens. We serve Starbucks, and we've an good Starbucks brewer interior the returned. The device heats the water to 2 hundred tiers. If it is not at a minimum of 198 tiers it won't even permit you brew the espresso, it makes you wait till that's warm sufficient. So McDonald's did no longer do something incorrect, surely.
2016-10-07 01:35:57 · answer #5 · answered by lashbrook 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Was the woman a fool to put her coffee cup between her legs? ABSOLUTELY!
Was McD's partially to blame? Yes - because the coffee was extraordinarily hot.
Do I think the lady deserved over a million dollars for it? NO WAY!
She should have been fairly compensated for her medical bills.
But, she was 73 years old! C'mon! I don't know if that irritates me because she was an irresponsible adult or if it instills pity and/or sympathy because she was elderly.
The biggest problem with this case is that it set a precedence for other, more frivolous lawsuits. And also, how the media presented it.
2007-01-12 07:09:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually, was it not a jury that ruled in her favor? And from what I was told by a lawyer, McDonalds did not make the right call either since this lady's attorney requested a settlement package of $30K from McDonalds. They refused, it went to trial, and the lost so much more!
2007-01-12 06:09:23 · answer #7 · answered by Scottee25 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, imagine having to think for yourself and being held responsible for doing something stupid like putting HOT coffee between your legs. That's the reason we have warnings about not using a hair dryer while sleeping, we're too stupid to have any common sense.
2007-01-12 06:08:26 · answer #8 · answered by kathy059 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No she should have accepted the fact that she made the mistake of trying to drink coffee and drive.
2007-01-12 07:29:25 · answer #9 · answered by mnwomen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the only reason McD's served their coffee scalding hot was because they felt their customers wanted hot coffee. by the time you get it and get your creamer sugar or whatever in it -- its probably cooled down enough by then.
that case was stupid. i'm sorry the lady got hurt, but duh -- your dealing with hot beverages -- be careful.
this case reminds me of the ones where fat people are suing fast food restaurants for making them fat -- although they keep shoving the food in their mouths.
2007-01-12 06:10:15 · answer #10 · answered by curious_One 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋