Slashdot Mirror

Besides, it appears the defendant got the high amount after alienating an initially friendly jury; the actual penalty paid was much less than the jury asked for; and most importantly the case successfully put an end to years of similar injuries. Where is the bad here?

link here found on snopes.

I'm so tired of hearing about the old lady driving with the hot coffee.

For a few quick points, 1) she was in the passenger seat, 2) the car was parked in the parking lot and 3) that particular McDonald's was serving it's coffee at 180F - 190F (capable of causing third degreee burns in 2 to 7 seconds). Plus, in the ten years prior to her case, McDonald's had had over 700 burn complaints, some with similar third degree burns.

That's not to say that there aren't some disturbingly frivolous lawsuits out there, but her's isn't the best example.

Have you read this article?

-a

My apologies if this seems offtopic, but I just need to point out that not all cases that appear frivolous are truly frivolous. Found via Snopes, from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, here are the actual facts of the McDonald's coffee spill case:

Facts Sheet: McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case

It can also be argued that the need for tort reform is overblown. Only rarely do ridiculous lawsuits result in windfalls for the plaintiff; these cases are almost always either thrown out or the judgement goes for the defendant. Some celebrated "outrageous" suits wherein judgement went for the plaintiff prove upon closer examination to be far less "outrageous" than originally presented in the media. (For example, the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America provides an excellent description of this case).

Eolas, the company that sued Microsoft back in 1999 for alleged violation of its browser plug-in patent, was awarded $521 million by a Chicago jury on Monday.

The thing about sensational jury awards is that they usually end up getting reduced later. For example, in the McDonalds coffee case the jury awarded $2.7 million in punative damages, but the judge later reduced the award to only $480k.

Microsoft was found in violation, and they're probably not going to overturn that. But half a bil is a ridiculous award, as anyone can see.

-a

us in south africa generally complain about the pathetic state of our country, government, and crime rate, but i'm sure one thing we're glad about is that we dont have the ridiculous judicial system that you guys in the states have.

having the ability to sue someone just because you were a fucking idiot and caused yourself harm, even if you were breaking the law (as is suggested in the parent post) makes me wonder how much faith one should be able to place in the courts of the USA.

stupidity should not be rewarded, no matter how 'politically correct' it may be to do so

relevant link

Why is it so difficult for companies to do the right thing, even if it will cultivate a more positive image for them in the long run, at a limited expense?

I always wonder the opposite. Why do /. readers feel they have the perogative to tell companies how to run their business even though it is clear that most /. readers have absolutely no business sense? Is it worthwhile to cultivate a positive image? Absolutely. Is it worthwhile to cultivate a positive image at any cost? Of course not.

Companies can often be quite ruthless in their valuation of goodwill. Take, for example the GM "defective door latch case", which was probably the inspiration for the 1991 film Class Action. GM estimated the cost of a recall at $916 million, but they were sued for only $150 million (plus they spent an undisclosed amount of money on secret repairs and out-of-court settlements).

Still, is a positive image worth $766 million? GM figured no. Besides, announcing the flaw would probably have given them negative publicity in the short term (manufacturer of unsafe cars), not positive publicity (responsible corporate citizen). And today, how many people actually know about this case? Can you honestly say that this case has altered your car buying decision?

I chose an extreme example to illustrate this, but I hope you get the point. If GM feels it is cost effective to kill people rather than recall their $20,000 products, what makes you think it is cost effective for Palm to recall their $200 products just for the sake of their public image? It may be "the right thing to do", but you have no business preaching that it will save them money in the long run.

-a

Third-degree burns are what happened. The victim spent eight days in the hospital getting skin grafts. The QA manager who made this decision should have experienced his accomplishment firsthand, dipped a la Achilles.

Wrong. Liquid at 180F (82C) liquid destroys skin within seven seconds. You just can't hand that to someone who isn't suitably equipped for hazardous materials--it certainly isn't food.

Remember, liquid holds and conducts much more heat than air does. By your argument, you could safely stir boiling water with your hand, but the fact is you'll be horribly maimed if you try.

Now if she Liebeck was driving with coffee between her legs (hot beverage between legs doesn't lead me to believe she's very intelligent) then one could say she was driving while distracted.

She wasn't; she was in the passenger seat in a stopped car, just ahead of the drive-through window. Read the story.

This is America. Hot coffee, anyone? Reparations for the ancestors of the slaves?

Misleading examples, anyone?

The judgement in the "coffee case", Liebeck v. McDonald's, followed after over 700 other cases between 1982 and 1992 in which a McDonald's customer was burned by overheated coffee. Coffee is usually served around 140 degrees Fahrenheit; McDonald's was serving it at over 180. A liquid at 180 degrees F. will cause third-degree burns to human skin in between two and seven seconds. (A "third-degree burn" does not refer to the skin being burned away, but to the full thickness of the skin being burnt.) Coffee at 180 degrees is not fit for consumption, as it will severely burn the mouth and throat.

Stella Liebeck did not set out to mooch millions of dollars from McDonald's. She initially wanted a settlement of $20,000 to cover her medical costs -- which included eight days in the hospital and skin-grafting operations. A jury awarded her the $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages -- to punish McDonald's for knowingly continuing to put its customers in harm's way. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000 despite calling the company "reckless, callous, and willful" in its deliberate risking of customers' well-being in order to save costs.

See the link above for details. If you want to say that our society is too litigious, go ahead -- it is -- but please do not Ms. Liebeck for that. She was the victim of another of our society's problems -- corporations who believe it will be cheaper to pay off (or toss aside) victims of their recklessness rather than do the right thing in the first place.

As far as ridiculous, well, I've pulled this paragraph out of the page:

Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

So tell me: deliberately selling a drink that was, by McDonald's own admission, "not fit for consumption" even though they knew that burns would occur--isn't that a little bit more ridiculous than the money the jury awarded her?

http://www.atlanet.org/cjfacts/other/mcdonald.ht

Thanks to memepool for this one.

Note that I'm NOT saying that I disagree with the Kazaa decision. I just thought that it was an interesting read. I'll be modded down for OT, I suppose. Oh well.

Maybe you find third-degree burns comical if you've only heard the Rush Limbaugh version of the case instead of what actually happened.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

...

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

You are so obviously are misinformed regarding the Liebeck vs. McDondalds' case. I'm sick of hearing this used as an example of frivolous lawsuits... it was anything but. McD's, after their own research indicating that it was extremely dangerous to do so, made it policy to consistently hand consumers foam cups filled with, well, what might as well have been hot lava. If you got your crotch burned off as a result of this, regardless if you were at partial fault, wouldn't you pursue the case to keep others from being hurt? To keep other corporations from making policy decisions without regard to safety for the consumer? I daresay I would.