Slashdot Mirror

That's a vast oversimplification.

Most significantly, the temperature people generally serve coffee at is, in fact, hot enough go give third-degree burns. The general recommended temperature to store coffee at before serving is 185 degrees (farenheit, obviously). The truth is neither that the lawsuit was totally frivolous, nor that it was totally justified, but that this was a complicated situation with a number of issues that generally get glossed over.

I'll use your own example: hot coffee.

The case of Stella Liebeck is a perfect example of what lawyers should be doing. McDonalds, for over a decade, served their coffee at temperatures hot enough to instantly cause severe burns - over 700 of them that led to lawsuits, almost all of which were settled out of court with no indication of McDonalds lowering their coffee temperature or even training employees to ensure lids were put on properly before serving. Stella Liebeck's lawyer was the first one to successfully bring McDonalds to court for effectively throwing scalding coffee at customers, and that only happened after McDonalds refused to settle for paying for Stella's two years of rehabilitation and skin grafts.

This is what's worth defending. When somebody, be it a big company or an individual, unfairly puts others at risk, those others should be defended. McDonald's customers should be defended from having hazardous material hastily handed to them, and people should be defended from the financial burden of being hit by a careless driver, and medical professionals should be defended from being duty-bound to treat everyone, even if there's no reimbursement for the expense.

Hes filed a lawsuit against David Copperfield for basically infringing on his "powers" http://www.stellaawards.com/cases/copperfield-response.pdf what a moron.

And Copperfield's response to the lawsuit:

Plaintiff Christopher Roller (“Roller”) has commenced an action for a purported labor dispute against David Copperfield’s Disappearing, Inc. (“Copperfield”) under Minnesota Statute 179.06. This statute relates to the notice required to negotiate or make changes to a collective bargaining agreement. Seeing as how Roller has never worked for Copperfield in any capacity anywhere ever and has no relation to Copperfield whatsoever, he has no claim currently nor could he ever have any employment or labor claim against Copperfield. Plaintiff’s Complaint is best described as a claim for usurpation of Godly powers, which as this Court is aware, is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court or any court of this earth.

Actually, I'm under the impression that some of the bleeding obvious warning have little to do with "nature designing a bigger idiot" as with basically a law system where people can pretend to be idiots to sue for millions. And where juries of disgruntled anti-corporatist can actually decide to award an idiot that a company pays his medical bill, even when essentially ruling that the idiot is to blame for his own misfortune. Just because, you know, it would be somehow mean to tell a little old lady to pay for her own skin graft, when you can just take some money from a corporation to cover those costs.

E.g., "Wanda Hudson, 44, of Mobile, Ala. After Hudson lost her home to foreclosure, she moved her belongings to a storage unit. She says she was inside her unit one night "looking for some papers" when the storage yard manager found the door to her unit ajar -- and locked it. She denies that she was sleeping inside, but incredibly did not call for help or bang on the door to be let out! She was not found for 63 days and barely survived; the formerly "plump" 150-pound woman lived on food she just happened to have in the unit, and was a mere 83 pounds when she was found. She sued the storage yard for $10 million claiming negligence. Even though the jury was not allowed to learn that Hudson had previously diagnosed mental problems, it found Hudson was nearly 100 percent responsible for her own predicament -- but still awarded her $100,000."

Source: http://www.stellaawards.com/2003.html

Roll that around in your head. Even after ruling her responsible, they _still_ awarded her $100,000. God knows what for. Apparently just because it would be heartless _not_ to rob a company to pay for a trespasser's misfortune.

More worryingly, even warning signs really don't matter any more.

E.g., "Hornbeck volunteered for the Army and served a stint in Iraq. After getting home, he got drunk, wandered into a hotel's service area (passing "DANGER" warning signs), crawled into an air conditioning unit, and was severely cut when the machinery activated. Unable to care for himself due to his drunkenness, he bled to death. A tragedy, to be sure, but one solely caused by a supposedly responsible adult with military training. Despite his irresponsible behavior -- and his perhaps criminal trespassing -- Hornbeck's family sued the hotel for $10 million, as if it's reasonably foreseeable that some drunk fool would ignore warning signs and climb into its heavy duty machinery to sleep off his bender."

Source: http://www.stellaawards.com/2007.html

E.g., a woman sued Burger King after spilling the coffee onto her own lap, because, get this, although the cup did warn that the coffee is hot, the employee didn't also warn her verbally that it's dangerously hot. Because, you know, apparently otherwise it doesn't matter.

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806345/posts

Worse yet, in some parts you can even get to pay big bucks for something you didn't personally cause or had any way to cause or prevent.

E.g., when a hare-brained pyrotechnics stunt went wrong in a bar and resulted in a deadly blaze, it wasn't just the owners that had to pay. The list of those who were made to pay millions or had to reach a settlement (again in the millions), included the radio channel which aired an ad for the event, and the manufacturer of the beer they served there (and literally had no other involvement with the event, and likely only heard of it when they got sued), and the importer of that beer, and Home Depot who sold the material they used as insulation and which was ignited by their hare-brained pyrotechnics. (Although Home Depot never sold it as fire-proof or anything.)

Source, for example: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-540

Actually, I'm under the impression that some of the bleeding obvious warning have little to do with "nature designing a bigger idiot" as with basically a law system where people can pretend to be idiots to sue for millions. And where juries of disgruntled anti-corporatist can actually decide to award an idiot that a company pays his medical bill, even when essentially ruling that the idiot is to blame for his own misfortune. Just because, you know, it would be somehow mean to tell a little old lady to pay for her own skin graft, when you can just take some money from a corporation to cover those costs.

E.g., "Wanda Hudson, 44, of Mobile, Ala. After Hudson lost her home to foreclosure, she moved her belongings to a storage unit. She says she was inside her unit one night "looking for some papers" when the storage yard manager found the door to her unit ajar -- and locked it. She denies that she was sleeping inside, but incredibly did not call for help or bang on the door to be let out! She was not found for 63 days and barely survived; the formerly "plump" 150-pound woman lived on food she just happened to have in the unit, and was a mere 83 pounds when she was found. She sued the storage yard for $10 million claiming negligence. Even though the jury was not allowed to learn that Hudson had previously diagnosed mental problems, it found Hudson was nearly 100 percent responsible for her own predicament -- but still awarded her $100,000."

Source: http://www.stellaawards.com/2003.html

Roll that around in your head. Even after ruling her responsible, they _still_ awarded her $100,000. God knows what for. Apparently just because it would be heartless _not_ to rob a company to pay for a trespasser's misfortune.

More worryingly, even warning signs really don't matter any more.

E.g., "Hornbeck volunteered for the Army and served a stint in Iraq. After getting home, he got drunk, wandered into a hotel's service area (passing "DANGER" warning signs), crawled into an air conditioning unit, and was severely cut when the machinery activated. Unable to care for himself due to his drunkenness, he bled to death. A tragedy, to be sure, but one solely caused by a supposedly responsible adult with military training. Despite his irresponsible behavior -- and his perhaps criminal trespassing -- Hornbeck's family sued the hotel for $10 million, as if it's reasonably foreseeable that some drunk fool would ignore warning signs and climb into its heavy duty machinery to sleep off his bender."

Source: http://www.stellaawards.com/2007.html

E.g., a woman sued Burger King after spilling the coffee onto her own lap, because, get this, although the cup did warn that the coffee is hot, the employee didn't also warn her verbally that it's dangerously hot. Because, you know, apparently otherwise it doesn't matter.

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806345/posts

Worse yet, in some parts you can even get to pay big bucks for something you didn't personally cause or had any way to cause or prevent.

E.g., when a hare-brained pyrotechnics stunt went wrong in a bar and resulted in a deadly blaze, it wasn't just the owners that had to pay. The list of those who were made to pay millions or had to reach a settlement (again in the millions), included the radio channel which aired an ad for the event, and the manufacturer of the beer they served there (and literally had no other involvement with the event, and likely only heard of it when they got sued), and the importer of that beer, and Home Depot who sold the material they used as insulation and which was ignited by their hare-brained pyrotechnics. (Although Home Depot never sold it as fire-proof or anything.)

Source, for example: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-13-540

Sometimes, lawsuits take a *long* time to get through the courts to the point where they're dismissed or resolved. Six years from incident to dismissal doesn't surprise me as much as I wish it did.

There's a book called "The True Stella Awards" by Randy Cassingham, which is full of documented court cases that waste time & money, set bad precedents, try to punish the wrong people, etc, and it's disheartening to see how long the process can take.

Wrong, no one is going to sue the employee.

Of course not. The employee doesn't have millions of dollars.

The owners are responsible to some extent for what their employees do on the clock.

Like I said, if McDonalds had trained the employee incorrectly, or incompletely, then I might agree with suing them.

16% is considered quite a lot of third degree damage.

From http://stellaawards.com/stella.html :
"Stella was burned badly (some sources say six percent of her skin was burned, other sources say 16 percent was)..."

Interesting how you use the higher of the two numbers...

Wrong, the number is irrelevant.

No, it is not. Not when you are trying to prove "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". If these things were true, many more people would have hurt themselves on the "defective, unreasonably dangerous" coffee.
The low numbers prove it was NOT unreasonably dangerous.

If you haven't read the whole story, here it is:

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

According to the National Coffee Association, coffee is supposed to be brewed at 195-205F, and either drunk immediately (how?) or kept at 180-185F.

I'm assuming this is trolling, but I want to clarify anyway. She wasn't driving. She was in the passenger seat. AND the car was stopped. Poor lid design and hotter than standard temperatures led to quick third degree burns.

Not completely true.

The vehicle was stopped, she put the coffee between her legs (why not a cupholder?), took off the lid, then spilled the coffee, then (by her own admission) sat in the coffee for 90 seconds.

Get the full story. http://stellaawards.com/stella.html
http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/

The coffee case has largely been misrepresented in popular media. Liebeck, the plaintiff, suffered third degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, and genitals. She required 8 days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and $11,000 in medical bills.

Absolutely irrelevant. The issue is not was she injured, but WHO caused the injury by direct action or negligence.

Liebeck first sought to settle out of court for $20,000 to cover said bills. When McDonalds countered with a $800 offer, Liebeck took the case to court.

Also irrelevant. Settlement offers have no legal meaning. The famous Washington $54-million pants lawsuit judge was offered $12,000 by the dry cleaner to go away.

The scalding coffee was not.

Bullshit. McD's coffee is incredibly safe. The rate of injury for McD's coffee is 1 per 24 million cups. That is, for every injury, 24 MILLION PEOPLE DRINK COFFEE WITHOUT INCIDENT. And the vast majority of those cases are where McD's employees spilled coffee on a customer.

How safe does a consumer product have to be? The coffee even had a "caution hot" warning on the lid.

Did she ever drink coffee before that day? Yes. Did she know how coffee was made? Yes. Has she made coffee before? Yes. Did she know coffee was hot? Yes.

The cause of this unfortunate injury was the fact that Stella Liebeck is clumsy and stupid. She was in the passenger seat, put the coffee between her legs, took off the lid, and then spilled it. She then sat in the coffee for 90 seconds. Should coffee come with a "do not sit in coffee" warning?

Why didn't she put the coffee in one of the many cup holders in the vehicle?

Read the full story: http://stellaawards.com/stella.html

Other coffee vendors around the city were, at the highest temperature, 20 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than McDonald's coffee.

Also irrelevant. They also get complaints that their coffee tastes like crap.

If you support the Stella verdict, you are saying that you must treat every adult like a 5 year old child.

Actually when I think of stupid lawsuit I think of the guy who set his Winnebago cruise control and then went to make a sandwich. He got a couple of million because the manual didn't say basically "cruise control is NOT autopilot,idiot."

That's not a real case, it was made up. See here, next to last entry in the table. There's plenty of legit crappy lawsuits, spreading around the fake ones isn't necessary and tends to hurt calls for doing something to prevent the bad ones.

Have you read the facts on that case?

Stella Awards

That McDonalds had settled many times before. They didn't settle with her because they were expecting her to die of old age first. No plaintiff, no case.

Gah, everything else in your comment is spot on but people always bring the McCoffee thing up as an example of a frivolous lawsuit when it actually wasn't. The coffee was very hot, enough to cause serious burns (she needed skin grafts).

First the "facts" of the case as presented by the lawyers state that McDonalds held their coffee ready to serve at 180-190 F. I have found no evidence to substantiate their claim that other establishments served their coffee at 135-140 F prior to the lawsuit. You'll notice the page glosses over the temperature with a couple "factual" statements, then spends the rest of its time describing the burns and what temperatures are required to avoid them completely ignoring any requirements imposed by the coffee. That's the strategy they used during the trial to sway the jury.

The National Coffee Association of the U.S recommends the coffee be maintained at 180-185 F.

The Specialty Coffee Association of America recommends the coffee be held at 175-185 F (you have to buy their guidebooks to see the actual numbers so the link is not to their site).

Bunn, a major producer of coffee brewing and serving equipment recommends a holding temperature of 175-185 F and in fact recommends any coffee below 175 F be re-heated before serving. They also note that many of the aromatics will not evaporate at 150 F, thus depriving the coffee of its characteristic smell. This would appear to contradict the claim that other establishments served coffee at 135-140 F.

Starbucks sells coffee dispensing equipment which puts out coffee at 180 F.

The same manufacturer, DeLonghi produces a unit with a 150-200 F temperature setting, indicating the 155 F recommended by the lawyers' site is at the extreme bottom of preferred coffee serving temperatures, and IMHO unsuitably cool for coffee served at a drive-through which in most cases will not be consumed until after a 5-15 minute drive to a destination.

I'll repeat, this is a product which is meant to be served in a state which is dangerous if mishandled. What's next, airlines being sued because their planes fly at a speed which is fatal if there's an accident? Or power companies being sued because electrical lines can cause severe burns or fatality if mishandled? The lawsuit points out that 700 people were also burned by McDonalds coffee in the 10 years prior. But McDonalds served tens of billions of cups of coffee during the same time, leading to an incident rate of one in 24 million . If I were a safety engineer and my product had an incident rate of one in 24 million, I'd be ecstatic at how safe it was!

Yep, the Stella Awards people have been backpedalling: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html lays out some of the facts ... then in order to justify the continued use of their cheeky eponym, they throw out some of their own justifications afterward. It's still slanted (basically says nothing about McD's conduct that lead to the high punitive damages), but not quite as egregiously now.

You may well have read some article assuming they were the same, there are rather too many "journalists" who get all excited when they think they can steal something off the Internet in place of doing real work. The Darwin Awards aren't the only ones suffering from this problem, the True Stella Awards site often gets listed as the source for the bogus Stella Awards email.

The only concise reference to starbucks tempatures indicates that if you order your drink "extra hot" it comes at 180 degrees

I'm sure I could dig up their official specs with enough effort, but.. work calls.

I suspect you're going to disagree with this post as well - so let me head you off: of course you have the right to disagree what is reasonable - but try to remember that there were 12-14 citizens who listend to the testimony from both sides in this case and came to the determination that McDonalds willfully and knowingly created a danger to the public. You may find this site more to your likeing, which indicates that the NCSA does recomend serving coffee that hot, but the linked sites go on to mention that most restaurants don't do this because it's dangerous when you're using a styrofoam cup that retains heat.

-GiH

I think that you and the rest of us are using different working definitions for the word "frivolous."

I'm using the definition that http://www.stellaawards.com/ uses. A case where, if both parties were acting reasonably, could easily be settled out of court instead of wasting taxpayer money to try the case. 9 times out of 10 the businesses do indeed win such cases- but if they had acted MORALLY instead of PROFITABLY in the same situation, then no lawyer in the world would have filed a lawsuit to begin with. These lawsuits get filed because there is a 10% chance of actual wrongdoing on the part of the business- if there were no chance of wining, there'd be no settlement to take legal fees out of.

The coffee was most certainly not defective. Moreover, their injury rating is somewhere to the tune of "just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold" per year. That's 23,999,999 cups of java successfully consumed per year without incident.

Face it; the lawsuit was frivolous. She did not take any due care to prevent the liquid from spilling in her lap and the verdict was the result of the jury sympathizing with an elderly woman who experienced serious pain and discomfort. These kind of lawsuits are a great example of how our society is losing all sense of personal responsibility.

Boiling water? If you touch boiling water to your mouth, you will have serious problems.

{sigh} I can't believe Stella's horse is still being beaten. Yes, McDonald's used water that was very hot. Yes, the coffee drinker's association of America defended that practice because that's how you're supposed to brew coffee to extract the full flavour from the beans ...

By the by; when you make coffee, you don't generally start drinking it the moment it hits the cup. Moreover, water stops 'boiling' as soon as it is removed from its heat source. Generally you take the time to mix your cream, milk, sugar, sweetener etc. before you begin drinking. But much like anything else that gets discussed on Slashdot everybody's an expert, everybody's a connoisseur, and everybody certainly knows best about every situation.

Back to Stella's case; she knew the coffee was hot. She put the cup of coffee between her legs in the car at the side of the road to mix her cream and sugar. She managed to spill the beverage all over herself all by herself and took the age-old American view of "It's Not My Fault" to court and went after the deepest pockets she could find; the red and yellow clown.

For more facts in the case, you can refer to the Stella Awards page dedicated to Ms. Liebeck for more facts on the matter. But please, don't allow facts to get in the way of all the Slashdot exspurt testimony.

Save yourself some time, just post this link in future:

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

The parent is probably referring to an apocryphal case that is debunked on Randy Cassingham's True Stella Awards website. Although, according to a reply, there has been at least one real case like this.

Better to be paranoid than be a victim.

Ah, but in the USA everyone is a victim of something!

Unfortunately apparantly not - although I've only found that out while trying to find the original article I saw it in a couple of years back.

The Stella awards is an entertaining place to waste a little time if you're bored at work - all sorts of ridiculous lawsuits

Actually, no, you wouldn't. (See Chapter 7). (Sorry I don't have links to actual case files.. Would love anyone else to provide them, either supporting or debunking my claim).

"And that Lady who sued Mcdonalds she lost on Appeal."

You're wrong. There was no appeal made. A settlement was made between Liebeck and McDonalds.

Here, here, and here all point out that you are wrong. It's odd that someone who is trying to claim to know "the real facts" makes such false claims.

I'd say that somebody who creates a corporation merely to escape the consequences of their actions counts as a good example of being morally bankrupt.

Except that's not what the GP post was talking about. Go visit the Stella Awards site. It's this type of lawsuits the GP was trying to defend against. You don't have to do anything wrong to get sued.

Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the US legal system. In the US, you can sue anyone, even though they aren't remotely liable, and win millions. Have a look at the Stella Awards, the previous issue, and OverLawyered for many of the stupidities of the US legal system.

Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the US legal system. In the US, you can sue anyone, even though they aren't remotely liable, and win millions. Have a look at the Stella Awards, the previous issue, and OverLawyered for many of the stupidities of the US legal system.

I love it when people bring up those two hoary urban legends...

Check out: http://www.stellaawards.com/bogus.html, it's got a bunch of info on these (and more) urban legends.

Lets get the facts straight.
Here's a link to the facts on Liebeck vs. McDonald's: http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

You'll note:

    Stella Liebeck was found to be partially responsible for her own injuries by the jury.
    While there were 700 burn incidents, that was out of over 23 million cups of coffee - not a significant fraction.
    And last but not least: The temperature of the coffee served by McDonalds was below the temperature recommended by the National Coffee Association - it wasn't too hot.

The True Stella Awards covered a case where Sharper Image sued Consumer Reports over a bad review of their air purifier. A judge found that Sharper Image's suit was bogus, that they'd filed it to try to silence Consumer Reports' criticism, and awarded Consumer Reports $400,000 to cover their legal fees.

If Apple has really not performed the necessary due dilligence in this case, I hope the EFF is filing a SLAPP claim against them on behalf of the defendants.

- Greg

The coffee was colder the the recomended temerature from a us coffe loving organisation:

From http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html:

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit". (Source: NCAUSA.) Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

If nothing else, this country seems to need more lawyers, if not good developers.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh why can't people actually take the time to look up the facts of this case? If I have to explain this one more time...

Actually, I'm not going to explain it. You can see it here:
http://stellaawards.com/stella.html

McDonalds coffee was not "too hot". It was just right. It's just that most people appearently don't know coffee is supposed to be served hot. Despite the usual attitude of holding people responsible for their own ignorance, here you blame McDonalds for not telling people that coffee is hot.

Stella!

This isn't a troll, it's the truth! The Stella Awards was named after this lawsuit, but after researching the situation, they found that the Stella lawsuit *WAS* justified.

facts about the case can be found here http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html She did spill the coffee, coffee IS hot, as much as I HATE the golden arches I think this was silly. Oh, and the AP handed out an ip, the connection was approved. The computer I am typing this on will connect automagicly if the connection is open.

That link is quite biased. "The jury initially awarded Ms. Liebeck the equivalent of two days worth of coffee sales..." What's the point of saying that? How many days of coffee profits, which is more to the point?

Anyway, this page is a bit more balanced. 700 cases over 10 years works out to 1 out of every 24 million cups. And how about the fact that the National Coffee Association reccomends coffee be served at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit?

Here is the most detailed explanation of the facts of the case that I have found.

Or maybe he did convince them that going against the kid or his parents would not make much more (because they do not have it) and that it will make more profit suing a big company (because the big companies do have money and the juries are prone to condemn them). There are more of these issues in Stella Awards, although this case is not covered yet.

Don't even waste your time, FD. Society has villified Stella and will not hear reason or be persuaded by facts. Comfort yourself with the quiet irony that the canonical story that claims to be about frivolous lawsuits is actually one about continued corportate neglect and recklessness.

McDonalds was selling food that they knew, by testamony, was unfit for consumption. That is, even if used properly, the coffee would cause severe burns.

Furthermore, please explain exactly what it was that was stupid that she did. Careless, I can see. A no-fault accident, I could see. But her doing something stupid, the same thing that probably thousands of other people do daily, I can't see.

That's why I said there are legitimate disagreements with the ruling, but spouting off I didn't know if "I drive with a cup between my legs and hit a bump in the road, that I'll get scalded" is pure ignorance.

The Real Stella Awards (named after this case) gives a good summary of the arguments for and against the ruling.

There are many, many, many more cases where the verdict was much more clearly wrong than in this case.

I'm nominatin' this jackass for a Stella Award.

The motorhome is a myth, with a bogus lawsuit attached to it. (The link takes you to a whole list of such lawsuits.)

I used to think the same thing until someone pointed out the actual details of this lawsuit. It is defintely interesting. McDonald's was told repeatedly before this incident that they served coffee way too hot, something like 10-20F above the average. This lady just wanted a very small amount for medical bills, McDonald's bascially told her to go screw herself. In the end McDonalds was slapped with such a big fine because they were so far out of line with how they served the coffee in general and not because of the injuries to the old lady.

The plaintiffs were apparently able to document 700 cases of burns from McDonald's coffee over 10 years, or 70 burns per year. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"? Even in the eyes of an obviously sympathetic jury, Stella was judged to be 20 percent at fault -- she did, after all, spill the coffee into her lap all by herself. The car was stopped, so she presumably was not bumped to cause the spill. Indeed she chose to hold the coffee cup between her knees instead of any number of safer locations as she opened it. Should she have taken more responsibility for her own actions?

And...

Here's the Kicker: Coffee is supposed to be served in the range of 185 degrees! The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit". Exactly what, then, did McDonald's do wrong? Did it exhibit "willful, wanton, reckless or malicious conduct" -- the standard in New Mexico for awarding punitive damages?

Everyone here seems to be either ranting or siding with the guy. Before I take my position, let us look at the facts:

Richard talks to the county sheriff and tells them that he can host the sheriffs department website for free! the sheriff is happy and agrees. Three years down the line richard comes and says, "we can earn money!". Proposes advertising. Sheriff is happy. After some time, its clear there isnt so much money coming in from the ads, so he says to sheriff, pay me for the service or else... sheriff gets mad and refuses! Richard goes home and shuts down the webpage and demands $300K! The sheriff wants to set up the website and finds out that Richard owns the domain name! What to do? Being a cop, he arrests Richard and charges him for extortion, using a computer to commit a crime, larceny by conversion and obstruction of justice... his argument being, "the exorbitant demand amounts to extortion."!

Now the tables are suddenly turned on Richard, as he now has to justify himself although he was giving the service freely which means that he could walk away whenever he wanted and that he owned the sites name! I think Richard is right here and no matter what the sheriff calls it, its not extortion / kidnapping / ransom.

But this is the US and the justice system has its owncrazy way of working!

The site also includes some reports of cases where the result of a case is quite reasonable despite initial outrageous claims.

If you want an example of outrageous legal claims, look into the asbestos law suits.

Umm...

• criminal trial != civil lawsuit
• USA != Norway

Since this thread has turned more attention to Stella and less to SCO, I thought you might find this link interesting (if you haven't seen it already): The Stella Awards
"The Stella Awards were inspired by Stella Liebeck. In 1992, Stella, then 79, spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee onto her lap, burning herself. A New Mexico jury awarded her $2.9 million in damages, but that's not the whole story. Ever since, the name "Stella Award" has been applied to any wild, outrageous, or ridiculous lawsuits -- including bogus cases! We search for true cases, and you can subscribe by e-mail for free to get the case reports as they're issued."