On Dec 6, 8:09*am, Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 12/6/2012 12:21 AM, Smitty Two wrote:



In article ,
* "Mike Marlow" wrote:

Or, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit.

Uh, I'd venture that 99.9% of the people who bring this up as a supposed
example of a frivolous lawsuit, actually have never heard the real
story.

Fact 1: The woman received THIRD DEGREE burns. The coffee was FAR hotter
than any reasonable restaurant ever serves it. This was a deliberate
ploy to reduce requests for refills, as the stuff couldn't even be
sipped for 10-15 minutes.

Fact 2: The woman asked McD's to pay her medical bills, which IIRC were
a couple of hundred dollars.

Fact 3: She brought suit only AFTER McD refused to pay the paltry
medical bills.

That does not change the fact that she was responsible for her own
burns. If she had a car wreck with the coffee between her legs would she
have included the expense for that in her suit?

A judge and jury say you're wrong. And having heard the actual
evidence, I'd say their opinion is worth a lot more. Here are some
of the facts:

"Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of
her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After
the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees
while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding
hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16
percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days,
whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting,
scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with
McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this
small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been
burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to
inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;
McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for
consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;
McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area,
and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees
cooler."


Sounds to me like the jury did the right thing.