Slashdot Mirror

"Start with the contention that Bunn's coffee maker was negligently designed because [...] 'at the temperatures at which this coffee was brewed and maintained the structural integrity of the styrofoam cup into which the coffee was poured would be compromised making it more flexible and likely to give way or collapse when its rigid lid is removed.' It is far from clear to us that this effect, if a substantial one, should be laid at the door of Bunn rather than of the cup's producer[...]."

Judge Easterbrook is pointing out that the manufacturer did not make the decision to design their coffee maker with full knowledge of the containers into which they would be poured; obviously McDonald's is in a different position and there is no clear conclusion that the judge would've held differently than was in the McDonald's case based on these facts alone.

Also, I was mistaken regarding the study of temperatures of coffee at other restaurants; the study was done for a different case in 1986 in Texas but the results still hold true and were reported in the WSF (as cited here: http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm)

I realize we've gone far astray from my initial point (the success of modifying corporate decisions via the torts system) but for years I believed the myths about this case and saw it as a symptom of what was wrong with the legal system in the U.S. The more I learned about the actual case the more I realized that I was mistaken; I take the opportunity to enlighten others about the facts if possible. I recognize that frivolous lawsuits exist but do not feel that this is one of them. Ms. Liebeck died in 2004 after contending with not just the "incident" but also many jokes unjustly made at her expense and I think that's a shame.

No, you can't. McDonalds was punished for the temperature of their coffee which they refused to address, and she did not make anywhere close to a million dollars.

Some sites...

But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was later reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20% at fault. It also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

Also, what I said...

Not to say 3rd degree burns from coffee are comparable to a dislocated jaw,

I know the reason the woman won the case was not because the coffee was 'hot' but because it was unreasonably hot (she suffered 3rd degree burns). She also was awarded millions of dollars before an appeal lowered the amount of punitive damages. Like I said, I expect the first damages amount will be very high, but will be reduced. The exact legal details on how at fault this person is, I cannot truly guess. But there's no doubt, in my mind, that Wal-Mart can be held responsible and I cannot see it being difficult to find a jury who will feel sorry for a 19 year old 'kid' being forced to 'fight' for a game system, especially after you throw in pity testimony to win the hearts of the jury of how this kid stood in line for a day, in the rain and snow and blah, blah, blah. Then you claim the game was going to be a Xmas gift for his sick dying cousin or something, lol. The Jury will have no pity for Wal-Mart. Hehe, reminds me of that Travolta Movie, Cival Action where he tries to use pity to win money in a legal case, but wasn't allowed to.

Cheers,
Fozzy

I guess people need to actually read more about the case before making a judgement. I also used to believe that the the lawsuit was bogus and needed to be thrown out. However, after reading the details, I believe the jury made the correct decision.

The 81 year old had serious 3rd degree burns and she was treated at a hospital for $47,000. McDonald's initially tried to buy her off with $800 like they did with the 700 other previous victums. They spent $500,000 doing so already. They even settled a prior case for $27,500. So, they knew the coffee caused burns at 20 degrees higher than any other coffee shop's coffees.

McDonalds agreed to mediation, but decided not to pay the $225,000 mediation amount, so it went to court. The jury made a legitimate damage award of $160,000, reduced by 20% from $200,000 since she was partly to blame for the spill. They then awarded a high punitive judgement of $2.4 million for willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, but it was eventually reduced to $470,000 by the judge and even further reduced afterwards.

The punitive award is justified. The corporation tried to solve the problem by buying off their victums. This victum was seriously injured and McDonald's tried to worm its way out.

Here's one version of that story: http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit. htm

Your rambling post seems to have very little point other than "lawsuits are bad". Using Stella Liebeck's "hot coffee" lawsuit as an example of that is only effective if you don't know or understand the underlying facts.

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit. htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm

Next you'll say something about "people who spill coffee shouldn't get $2 million" is FUD, because McDonalds' PR skillfully spun that story all out of proportion.

Just to straighten out the facts, the settlement was for $160k in compensatory damages plus $480k in punative damages, a large part of which must have gone to doctor's fees for skin grafts.

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume you're referring to some other case involving a hot coffee suit, and not the infamous McDonalds suit. If you actually take the time to read the details of the McD's suit you'll see that the franchise in question was serving coffee at a temperature way way above what any reasonable person would consider acceptable. They had received numerous complaints about it prior to the incident, and the woman who was burned by the coffee received severe 2nd and 3rd degree burns. In other words - the suit was totally warranted. Any coffee at a temperature high enough to cause 3rd degree burns through clothing is unsafe and should not be served.

I provide this info for other readers who may not know the details of the case but love to point to it as an example of a frivolous lawsuit when in fact it is completely justified.

Relevant Links:
reference article
google search on topic