" wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story.
And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

I agree with you on this one. I think a lot of the people just
jump to the conclusion with very little of the facts. I looked
into it a bit and here are some of the facts:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and
whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result
in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim
for many months, and in some cases, years;

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.

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;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for
consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.
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.

In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one.
Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself
doesn't
absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers
who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them. A
large percentage of the customers will be opening the container
in a car, shortly after receiving it. They knew other people had
been burned. It would have been very easy for
them to simply serve the coffee at a lower temperature. Even if
you buy the argument that the woman bears responsibility, at most
it's just some of the responsibility. Maybe 20% her fault, I could
see that kind of verdict too. But not one that absolves McD for
most of what happened.


Even though the money awarded was reduced, and the case was appealed.