Tweet
Originally posted by st_swithin
I refer to the McDonald's/too-hot coffee case
I refer to the McDonald's/too-hot coffee case
First, I have never, ever seen anybody place a hot drink of any kind between the legs, or heard of anyone doing so apart from this case (which generated many a comment from coffee drinkers).
While there are legions of ridiculous awards one could cite, the McDonalds coffee case actually had merit. Most of the hype around the case is WRONG.
Consider:
* Internal documents showed that between 1982 and 1992, McDonalds received more than 700 claims of injuries resulting from coffee that was served too hot, some of these involving third-degree burns, some involving injured children. Previous claims had resulted in six-figure settlements (the highest was $500,000).
* McDonalds served its coffee at a temperature of 180 - 190F (most restaurants serve it at a much safer 135-140F). Coffee at 180-190F will scald the mouth and throat if swallowed.
* McDonald's own internal research showed that some customers drank their coffee immediately, while driving.
* McDonalds had previously ignored a request from the Shriner's Burn Institute of Cincinnati to serve their coffee at a safer temperature.
* The car was not in motion when the accident happened, and the victim (79-year-old Stella Liebeck) was not driving. The cup was not between her legs.
* What really happened: Her son was behind the wheel, and had stopped the car to allow her to add creamer and sugar to the coffee. She was holding the cup between her knees. When she removed the lid off the coffee, she accidentally spilled the entire cup.
* The coffee was so hot that she instantly suffered third-degree burns over 6% of her body (including her groin, genitalia, inner thighs and buttocks). Skin grafting resulted in scarring over 16% of her body.
* Mrs. Liebeck approached McDonalds asking for $11,000. McDonalds refused, and instead offered her $800. Liebeck (who had never before filed a claim against anyone) then hired a lawyer and asked McDonalds for $20,000 to cover her medical bills.
* A court-appointed mediator suggested a settlement of $225,000. McDonalds again refused, so the case went to trial.
* In court, McDonalds representatives initially lied about the 700 previous burn claims.
* The jury awarded Liebeck damages of $200,000 less $40,000 because they deemed her to be 20% at fault.
* Because it found McDonalds guilty of "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct", the jury also awarded punitive damages of $2.7 million, an amount based on two days of McDonalds coffee sales. This award was subsequently reduced to $480,000. (Imran corrrectly noted this oft-overlooked fact)
* The final award is not known because the parties entered into a secret settlement.
sources:
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm
I can think of many outrageous consumer product verdicts, two off the toppa me head: the silicone breast implant case (bad science), and the Pacific Gas & Electric case on which the film Erin Brockovich is based (really bad science, see the exposé from 
Product liability and pollution cases are argued by lawyers ignorant of science before judges ignorant of science to juries even more ignorant of both law and science. I am a firm believer in tort reform and codification.
Comment