Remember the Woman who Sued McDonald's? ...Conservative Tort Reform? Or Conservative Nanny State?

Question

Did you know that with both those cases the circumstances were exaggerated?
McDonalds apparently made their coffee so hot in order to hide it's poor quality and taste. And they did it to save fractions of a cent on every cup of coffee sold.
The alleged "burglar" who sued after being injured while breaking into a house? Well, he was actually a student who was on the roof of his school with some friends. The school had decided to paint skylights the same color as the roof. Two other students had fallen before him. The student who fell and sued remains paralyzed.
Now, knowing these facts, does it change your opinion on these particular cases?
And are these just examples of Conservatives trying to dodge responsibility and have the government take care of them?

http://www.ConservativeNannyState.org
http://ItsYourWorld-ChangeIt.blogspot.com

These stories, the McDonad's one especially, perfectly illustrate the kind of responsibility and accountability corporations are looking to dodge. Sure the lady was dumb for putting it between her legs, but if McD's wasn't trying to cover up their crappy product by making it really hot, she wouldn't have been burned so badly. The kids on the roof didn't belong there, but two other kids had fallen through skylights and the school failed to act, so in my opinion, it's the schools fault that young man was paralyzed. Thoughts?

Doc,
You talk a big game about "responsibility" but what about CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY? Where's the responsibility of the asbestos industry or the tobacco industry? Why is it okay for government to interfere on behalf of the rich, but not the poor? You've got it backwards. The US government should be there to protect the little guy, not the big guy. The deck's already stacked in their favor how much more can our government give them?

I'll say it again, McDonalds was trying to save FRACTIONS of a CENT. They make MILLIONS every DAY. To save those CENTS, they bought CHEAP coffee and made it really HOT to hid it's POOR QUALITY and TASTE. McDonalds is at FAULT.

Answer 1

Most of the answers say that the fault lies entirely on the injured party. Yes, of course people should take responsibility for their actions. But if injuries result from those factors which the injured party could not foresee, but others who could have done something could have, then at least part of the responsibility shifts.

The injured 79-year old woman had put the coffee between her legs once the car was parked. She wasn't even the driver. (BTW, she got third degree burns, not second) But McDonald's had a practice of selling their coffee at higher than normal temperatures, and had received hundreds of complaints from customer who received burns from the coffee. based on this practice and knowledge, clearly McDonald's knew what the woman did not, that the coffee had the potential to cause a severe injury.

I hadn't heard about the kids on the school roof. And yes, if the kid hadn't been on the roof, he wouldn't have been hurt. So he must be held partially responsible. But if the school knew that it was likely for kids to be on the roof, and for them to not know the skylights were there, then the school must, logically, share some of the responsibility.

But the primary goal of tort reform is to help those who least need the help, corporations and insurance companies. With tort reform, there is little incentive for anyone to stop a practice that they know injures innocent people. If McDonald's didn't have to pay the woman millions, would they have done anything to chane their practices? Of course not. And what would the result have been? Hundreds more injuries. Litigation serves a purpose. It allows those who are injured due to the actions or negligence of others to be compensated for their injuries, and encourages those who would cause injury to take steps to prevent it. With tort reform, neither of these goals would be achieved. But at least the rich and powerful would benefit.

Answer 2

I'm sorry. The kids were TRESPASSING. It was my understanding that the school was posted. Also, it is a reasonable assumption on the school's part that people would not CLIMB ON THE ROOF without their knowledge. I wonder if your house or workplace could withstand the same kind of after the fact review to see if something could be found to hang negligence on you. It is a tragedy that a person could be permanently hurt committing a crime but to ask the entity that the crime was being committed against to pay for it seems out of bounds to me.

The woman was stupid, plain and simple. The reward for being stupid is not to be given tons of money. If the coffee was lousy go to a Starbucks (although I don't like theirs either). If you have an open cup of anything it can spill in the car. Even with the covers spills happen. This is multiplied 100's of times when you stick the cup between your legs. I'm sorry, if I burnt myself there I would accept my own mistake and suck it up. The only reason the verdict went down the way it did was that McDonald's is a big corporation and they could afford the price.

Let's face it, if hot, lousy coffee is a crime punishable by millions of dollars there wouldn't be a coffeehouse or restaurant in business anywhere. The fault was that the woman spilled it on herself. McDonald's didn't do that.

The truly stunning thing in both cases is that, given the stupidity and in the kid's case criminal actions taken by the plaintiffs, that anyone thought to sue in the first place. I guess this is hats off to the clever trial lawyer who saw the dollar signs in these cases. These were truly cases of personal responsibility where the courts handed corporate money to private individuals who were manifestly unworthy of the verdicts.

Answer 3

A lot of different factors went into the McDonalds award case:
the punitive nature of the award was for repeat violations.
AND the award was reduced by later appeals - HOWEVER McDonalds got the message about serving coffee hot enough to scald your mouth.
- Coffee temperatures have been lowered to drinkable
- Warning labels were never really the issue.
""#
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.
""

Answer 4

You rarely get the full story of why a case made it to trial.
I wonder if people know that truly frivolous lawsuits don't go to trial?
We are so used to one or two paragraphs that we think that's pretty much all there is to the story. It goes much deeper than that, and in some cases you are only going to hear about the freaky, weird, or off the wall case. Its not representative of what goes on in courts daily.
By trumpeting these types of cases, and putting gag orders on the ones the businesses lose, we are given a very biased slant on how the court system works.
I'm always careful to go a bit deeper when I hear tort reform touted, because the people who support it are always the ones who want to be free to pollute, poison, burn and ignore safety precautions.
In the meantime, who must pay for skin grafts, therapy, operations and the pain those people go through? And the one who cause it would have no reason to change it no matter how many are injured due to the now documented evidence. MC Donald's did lower the temperature on their coffee, so how many fewer people got burned tongues or lips? Second degree is pretty damn painful, it means you skin blisters immediately and sloughs off.
If that's what she got on her thighs....what would have happened if she had sipped it?

Answer 5

I disagree. It's a matter of the individual not taking responsibility for their own actions. Classically, this is a liberal mindset. I hand you a cup of piping hot coffee. You asked me for it and I gave it to you. You put it between your thighs so that your hands are now free to do other things. You didn't notice that the cup was hot? Had I handed you a cup of luke warm or cold coffee, you'd have been upset about that as well. Some people just simply cannot be pleased. Did I tell you to put it between your thighs? THAT was your own doing. Owning responsibility for much of anything just doesn't seem to equate with the liberal mindset.
The student? Why was the student on the roof? It is again that same mindset that says it's alright that he was somewhere he was not supposed to be. The injury was of his own stupidity.
Should I decide to stop in at the local pub after work and have a few pints and get into an accident, do I have the right to sue the pub for having allowed me to drive home? In various states around the U.S., the answer is "Yes." So, where is the personal responsibility? I knew I'd still have to drive home after my brief visit.

Answer 6

I fail to see why any reasonable person would consider McDonalds to be in the wrong at any level for serving hot coffee. First, a lot of people like their coffee piping hot, which it is when it is fresh brewed with boiling water. And it should not surprise anybody that coffee, being brewed with boiling water, is hot.

As for protecting trespassers from injuries they brought upon themselves by their lawbreaking, that is counter to what is best for society. People who break the law and suffer damage because of it merit no sympathy. The fact is that if he hadn't trespassed, he'd not have gotten hurt. His inuries were a direct result of his disregard of the law. He was 100% at fault.

Your conclusion that there is a "conservative nanny state" or that "conservatives dodge responsibility" is illogical. Because the one dodging responsibility and supporting the nanny state is the one who wants to protect people from the consequences of their own stupid actions.

Answer 7

The woman placed the coffee between her legs in the car. That was really stupid on her part because accidents happen and everyone knows that coffee is hot. She was not prepared to accept hot coffee in her car. It's totally her fault.
McDonald's coffee is cheap. It's terrible. Don't buy it.

The kids shouldn't have been on the roof. That was dumb on their part.

I feel for them. This is why regulation of businesses becomes necessary because they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. If they did the right thing consistently then regulations wouldn't be needed in the first place. Stupid is as stupid does.

Answer 8

McDonald's trying to "cover up their crappy product"?

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that any product from McDonald's is crappy.

As usual, modern liberals like you feel a need to blame everyone else for your own stupidity.

The government's job is not to protect your from yourself.

It is better to deal with a big evil corporation that I don't have to do business with than to deal with big evil government that doesn't give me a choice.

I don't need any protection from corporations, thanks. I am not an idiot like you.

Answer 9

How can a person mistake the skylight for the roof, even if they are the same color, they are different textures.....and so who cares if the coffee was "extra hot" you still dont put the cup b/t your legs and drive off....

Answer 10

the woman who sued mcdonald's suffered second degree burns.

you know how they determined how much money she would get? it was the PROFIT from one day's sale of coffee.