Andrew Barss wrote:
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,

My point is it is NOT very controversial and I haven't noticed "legions
of people complaining about McDonalds selling hot coffee. About
everyone seems to think it was stupid. So many people thought it was
stupid, there must be a hundred comedy skits related to it. Seinfeld
had at least 3 shows related to it I think. The article you posted up
there notes that ABC news calls it, and I quote, “the poster child of
excessive lawsuits.”

but some of the facts suggesting it wasn't
a completely frivolous suit were

a) she received third degree burns

No one I know doubted she got 3rd degree burns. The issue was she did
it herself, and sued McDonalds for HER stupidity.

b) she originally wanted just her med costs (which included skin grafts)
covered, and only after McD's refused did it go to trial.

Makes no difference, she was the dumb ass that put a paper cup of hot
coffee between her legs and managed to burn herself.

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).

Doesn't matter, McDonalds didn't pour the coffee on her, seems most
people think she was entitled to nothing. You seem to think McDonalds,
being a successful company, entitles her to money.

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).

This makes it even more ridicules. Punishing McDonalds for selling hot
coffee is asinine, and thats why almost no one thinks it was justified,
and why comedians the world over made jokes about it, and why it is
known as the “the poster child of excessive lawsuits.” And why a zillion
hot coffee fans were ****ed off, fearing hot coffee would never be the
same. Also noted in the article you listed is the fact most judges
dismiss such cases before the get to jury. Now that is something I
could find amazing, I didn't think "most judges" were that intelligent,
considering most of them are lawyers!

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

YMMV,

Well, that could just mean you are greedy, or really think personal
responsibility is just wrong, or dislike profitable companies, or some
combination of all three.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com