Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
This was the beginning of the end of personal responsibility in America.
Even as a kid holding my dad's McDonald's coffee cups, I could feel how hot it was through the cup. She had plenty of places to put the cup in the car besides between her legs where it wouldn't have a chance to spill on her, and she didn't. Apparently I was smarter at 10 than she was as an adult.
She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.
Liebeck's case was far from an isolated event. McDonald's had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.
Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald's never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury's punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald's unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days' worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn't, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald's later reached a confidential settlement.
McDonald's admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits
McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.
In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about "callous disregard for the safety of the people." Another juror said "the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company."
^you say all of that, but hot coffee is hot coffee. It will burn.
FTFYHey, that's how a woman won almost $3 million after spilling coffee on herself. They got to cover their bosses.
Do you even know the facts of the case? Not the media distortions, but the facts?
It's a terrible event that happened, Whitey, but it's not like she didn't have other options. Was the floor of the parked car not flat? What about the shifter console? Could she have waited until she got home since the coffee obviously would've still been hot enough? She took a shortcut, and it burnt her. (ba-dum-tiss)
700 scalds reported compared to how many hundreds of thousands of cups of coffee served? Sounds like business as usual to me. This is no different than Toyotaignoringflat out denying sticking throttles in their vehicles that KILLED people because restitution was cheaper than a recall (this is far from the first time a decision like that has been made in the automotive industry). They would've stuck to their guns too if it weren't for the bad press that was hurting their profits. At least with McDonald's everyone knew their coffee was the hottest around (and a lot of people sought it out because of that fact - I know my entire childhood neighborhood did). Was this Stella's first cup of McDonald's coffee? I would say probably not. One sip ever is enough to understand how hot it was. I've never taken a drink, but I remember holding cups for my dad that felt really hot through the cup, and I made sure to take extra precautions not to spill on my child self.
It would be different if the lid was improperly fastened and caused the burns, but at what point does McDonald's liability disappear? Should they shoulder the added costs to put their coffee in a sippy cup to ensure it doesn't cause a burn on a small percentage of their customers? What about those companies that keep their coffee at a lower temperature that's still capable of causing third degree burns? Do we, as a country, serve all beverages iced because we're too stupid to take precautions to prevent being burned? Is personal responsibility really that terrible of a concept?
Onto Stella...suing a restaurant with deep pockets because you were downright stupid for daring to open scalding hot coffee in your lap and not getting it right is opportunism at its finest.
Liebeck had rung up around $11,000 in medical bills as a result of the accident, and she initially approached McDonald's asking for $20,000 to cover her medical bills, future medical expenses, and lost income.
A stove is made for burning, therefore you can't sue when you burn yourself. Coffee isn't made for burning so you shouldn't end up in the hospital if you accidentally spill it. Pretty basic.
This is where I think you are missing the point as you continue to be stuck in your perception of the case.
She wasn't going after a company with deep pockets just to make some easy money. It was hardly a case of "opportunism at its finest" as you call it. She only wanted compensation for the severe burns* that she received from the coffee. McDonald's countered with a lowball offer of $800. That's why they went to trial.
*(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)
This is where I think you are missing the point as you continue to be stuck in your perception of the case.
She wasn't going after a company with deep pockets just to make some easy money. It was hardly a case of "opportunism at its finest" as you call it. She only wanted compensation for the severe burns* that she received from the coffee. McDonald's countered with a lowball offer of $800. That's why they went to trial.
*(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)
A stove is made for burning, therefore you can't sue when you burn yourself. Coffee isn't made for burning so you shouldn't end up in the hospital if you accidentally spill it. Pretty basic.
Sweets said:I still don't see how Mickey Dees is at fault.
....