What Are You Thinking About v.CC

[carl_sjunior]

It was like unnecessarily scalding IIRC so that they didnt have to make more as soon. That's why it became a well known case. They were in the wrong. But the lady probs just gets treated like a total dumbass in her daily life...

 

[carl_sjunior]

Quote

Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. 

It's still a landmark case because of how frivolous it seems, but they did keep the coffee at a dangerous level at the time. 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

5 minutes ago, carl_sjunior said:

It was like unnecessarily scalding IIRC so that they didnt have to make more as soon. That's why it became a well known case. They were in the wrong. But the lady probs just gets treated like a total dumbass in her daily life...

 

She was holding the coffee in her lap between her legs, opened the lid to put creamer in and spilled it.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t out hot coffee near my dong for just such a reason.  

She’s also dead I’m sure, she was like 80 in the early 90’s iirc.

[carl_sjunior]

I used to stir my coffee with my dong and then I saw this legal case and I was like maybe not. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

She was holding the coffee in her lap between her legs, opened the lid to put creamer in and spilled it.

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t out hot coffee near my dong for just such a reason.  

She’s also dead I’m sure, she was like 80 in the early 90’s iirc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Although a New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant, ultimately Liebeck was only awarded $640,000. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.^[2] The jury damages included $160,000^[3] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

Pre-trial Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's^[13] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.^[16] Instead, the company offered only $800. 

 

The details of that case make the verdict far more reasonable.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

11 minutes ago, carl_sjunior said:

I used to stir my coffee with my dong and then I saw this legal case and I was like maybe not. 

It’d be a waste of time for me, the stirrer stick has more surface area.

[Ty21]

It would be nice to know who victims were in the CMU shooting today.. I have several friends that go to CMU 

[MWil23]

18 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Although a New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant, ultimately Liebeck was only awarded $640,000. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Liebeck's attorneys argued that, at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.^[2] The jury damages included $160,000^[3] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

Pre-trial Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's^[13] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.^[16] Instead, the company offered only $800. 

 

The details of that case make the verdict far more reasonable.

Yeah, exactly. They had been warned MANY times that their coffee was hotter than scalding, which caused her significant 3rd degree burns.

Fun Fact:

The jury awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages as "poetic justice", because that is exactly what McDonald's is projected to make based upon 2 days worth of coffee sales.

[Malfatron]

19 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The details of that case make the verdict far more reasonable.

thanks for explaining that.

mcdonalds ran a smear campaign against this lady, and she has unfairly been a poster child for frivalous lawsuits ever since

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Maybe the old bird shouldn’t have been so clumsy?

I’ll die on this hill.

[MWil23]

10 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Maybe the old bird shouldn’t have been so clumsy?

I’ll die on this hill.

During the discovery phase of the litigation, several interesting facts came out that, through the years, were not discussed by the main stream media. For one, McDonalds had faced over 700 claims by people who had suffered burns from the coffee from 1982-1992. Some of these claims involved full-thickness burns similar to those suffered by Ms. Liebeck. These previous claims showed that McDonalds knew, or should have known, about the danger associated with the high temperatures of the coffee.

McDonalds admitted that they kept their coffee temperature between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit. They used this temperature based on a consultant’s advice that this was the range needed for the best taste. McDonalds originally claimed that customers intended to consume the coffee after they got to work or home at which time the coffee would have cooled down. However, McDonalds’ own internal research showed that most of the customers drank the coffee while still in their car. McDonalds admitted that they had not studied the dangers associated with these high temperatures.

It was found that other fast food restaurants sold their coffee at significantly lower temperatures. Coffee served by people in their homes was in the 135-140 degree range.

Plaintiff’s had an expert on thermodynamics related to skin burns. He testified that liquids at 180 degrees would cause a full-thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. As the temperature of the liquid fell to 155 degrees the likelihood of a burn injury would fall exponentially. If the coffee served to Ms. Liebeck was 155 degrees it would have cooled enough to avoid a significant injury when she spilled it.

McDonalds argued that their customers knew the coffee was hot and the customers wanted it that way. There was a statement on the side of the cup but McDonalds agreed that it was only a “reminder” that the coffee was hot. The writing on the cup was not located in a position to serve as an actual warning and McDonalds admitted to this fact. McDonalds also admitted that the customers were not aware that the coffee being served could cause full-thickness burn injuries if contacting the skin.

The most damaging testimony against McDonalds actually came from its own quality assurance manager who testified that McDonalds required their restaurants to keep the coffee pot temperature at 185 degrees. He admitted that a burn risk existed for any food (or drink) served at over 140 degrees and that the coffee poured into the cups was not yet fit for consumption since it was well above that temperature. Burns to the mouth and throat would occur if the consumer would drink the coffee at that temperature. He also stated that McDonalds had no plans to reduce the temperature of its coffee.

After a jury trial, Liebeck was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damages were reduced to $160,000 because the jury found that Liebeck was at fault for 20 percent of the spill. Even though the punitive damages award seemed high, it only amounted to about two days’ worth of national coffee sales for McDonalds at that time.

The high punitive damages award got quite a lot of press. The states have all been concerned about high punitive damages awards as these awards seem to undermine a core value of our justice system, i.e., a sense of fairness. The states have tried different methods to regulate punitive damages awards including (1) barring punitive damages altogether, (2) allowing punitive damages only when they are allowed by statute, (3) imposing a statutory limit in the form of an absolute monetary cap, and (4) imposing a maximum ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. Even the United States Supreme Court has opted to limit punitive damages to single digit ratios to compensatory damages for several tort and contract cases.

The trial court, probably believing that the punitive damages award was too high, reduced that part of the award to $480,000 which was about three times the compensatory damages. This was more in line with the single digit ratio of punitive to compensatory damages which was discussed in previous Supreme Court jurisprudence. However, even though the judge reduced the punitive damages award, he did conclude that McDonalds’ conduct was “reckless, callous, and willful.”

[ramssuperbowl99]

12 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Maybe the old bird shouldn’t have been so clumsy?

I’ll die on this hill.

McDonalds shouldn't be serving people coffee that's nearly hot enough to cook pasta. That's bananas. Eventually, someone would have spilled it and at those temperatures the damage would be crazy.

That's why the jury split the blame 80/20 McDonalds/old lady.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

McDonalds shouldn't be serving people coffee that's nearly hot enough to cook pasta. That's bananas. Eventually, someone would have spilled it and at those temperatures the damage would be crazy.

That's why the jury split the blame 80/20 McDonalds/old lady.

Apparently it made it taste better.  We can all thank the clumsy old lady with the shaky knees the next time you get some bitter coffee from McDonalds.

Maybe the retiree should have left the coffee drinking to those with steady hands and jobs.

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Apparently it made it taste better.  We can all thank the clumsy old lady with the shaky knees the next time you get some bitter coffee from McDonalds.

Maybe the retiree should have left the coffee drinking to those with steady hands and jobs.

Bad trolling tbh

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Bad trolling tbh

Half serious.

Putting coffee in your crotch in a car to add cream/sugar is dumb, regardless of how hot the coffee is.