Jack Stein wrote:
: J. Clarke wrote:

: Oh, now you've done it. Watch--legions of people are going to be jumping in
: here telling you that McDonalds should not have been selling "scalding hot
: coffee" because all the other restaurants in the area were selling lukewarm
: mud. It amazes me how many people think that that suit was justified.

: Funny, I never once heard anyone say they thought that suit was
: justified, not one person, not in real life, nor on TV, radio, no where?

: Very strange.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

It's controversial, but some of the facts suggesting it wasn't
a completely frivolous suit were

a) she received third degree burns
b) she originally wanted just her med costs (which included skin grafts)
covered, and only after McD's refused did it go to trial.
c) The larger amount of money was punitive damages, which were
some percentage of McD's coffee profits (as I recall, one day's worth).
Punitive damages are often set as a function of the size of the company
found at fault (i.e. to be punitive to McD's, it has to be more than
a few thousand dollars, which was what she originally wanted them to pay).

If this had happened to my mother, I certainly would have found the
final judgment justified.

YMMV,


Andy Barss