Quote:
Originally Posted by lazylioness
So now, we have people that make a living putting blame on other people. It is McDonald's fault that we burn ourselves on coffee because we cannot possibly know on our own that it is hot..
While I may agree with many of your comments I do not agree with this one. Most people make a big deal out of the "coffee" lawsuit without knowing all the facts. I am sure most people would feel differently about this case if they knew the facts and/or if the
79 year old woman who had to spend 8 days in the hospital was someone they cared about. Here are just some of the facts that came out at trial:
- McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
- Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
- Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
- The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
- McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
- From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
- Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;
- McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
- McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then required temperature;
- McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
- Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
- McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.
Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.”
Plaintiff:
The plaintiff was a 79 year old woman named Stella Liebeck.
Location: In 1992 Stella was riding as
a passenger in a vehicle driven by her grandson in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The Scene: Ms. Liebeck and her grandson pulled into a drive thru at a local McDonald’s Restaurant. After purchasing the coffee, the grandson pulled the car to a nearby curb and stopped the car so Ms Liebeck could add sugar and cream to her coffee. Stella was holding the cup between her legs. When she removed the lid from the cup it turned over and spilled into her lap.
Was the car stopped?
Fiction: I always hear “the car was moving” when Stella spilled the coffee. Not true!
Truth: The car was stopped.
Was Stella seriously injured?
Fiction: Stella only suffered minor injuries.
Truth: Stella suffered 3rd degree burns over 16% of her body. The burns were to her inner thighs, buttocks, perineum, and genital and groin area.
The burns went as deep as her bone. She was wearing sweatpants which were literally burned into her skin.
Did Stella require hospitalization?
Fiction: Stella didn’t require hospitalization.
Truth:
Stella was in the hospital for 8 days and underwent multiple debridement and skin-grafting surgeries.
Did Stella ever try to settle this for a lesser sum of money?
Fiction: Stella never tried to settle the case.
Truth: There was an early attempt to settle for the medical bills of approximately $11,000. Later Ms. Liebeck offered to settle for $90,000. McDonald’s generously offered $800.
Was the coffee too hot?
Myth: The coffee was not too hot
Truth: Testimony showed that the coffee was heated to 180 to 190. At 180 degrees, liquids can cause burns to human skin in 2 to 7 seconds. Coffee served at home is generally 135 degrees. Many commercial establishements serve coffee in the range of 130 degrees to 140 degrees. A burn risk exists with any coffee over 140 degrees.
Myth: McDonalds was not on notice that there coffee was causing burns
Truth: There was 700 other coffee burn cases that McDonald’s was aware of.
Myth: Stella received $2,700,000 in compensatory damages.
Truth: Actually Stella was only awarded $200,000 which was later reduced by the Judge to $160,000. The trial Judge reduced the $2,700,000 punitive damages to $480,000. Punitive damages were put in place to punish corporations for bad acts. Consequently the bulk of any punitive damage award in the State of New Mexico goes to the State of New Mexico.
Obviously, there is much more to this case than the “stigma” applied by insurance industry. The insurance industry has spent millions of dollars distorting this story to advance tort reform.
Don’t buy the 30 second sound bites. Arm yourself with the facts.
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. Please take the time to look at the links below or do a google search for "facts" of the McDonald's Coffee Case.
http://www.brookslawgroup.com/blog/s...t-coffee-case/
http://www.citizen.org/hot-coffee
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-...ers-video.html
http://mentalfloss.com/article/26862...coffee-lawsuit