Sharing IM's is against TOS.. but what about local chat?

solstyse · February 24, 2013

Hugsy Penguin wrote:

It's clear you don't know anything about the Stella Liebeck case.

Coffee is supposed to be served hot. It's not supposed to be served at 185°F (85°C). That's hot enough to inflict third degree burns (i.e., not just red on the surface but burned all the way through the dermis) and is unfit for consumption. McDonalds knew their coffee could do this to people (because there had been claims in the past) but did nothing about it.

And, no, she wasn't trying to scam millions out of McDonalds. She initially sought $20,000, which I believe mostly covered medical costs, but McDonalds refused. And before they entered into a secret settlement, the amounts were reduced to $160,000 in compensatory damages and $480,000 in punitive damages (still a lot but not millions).

I don't think anyone, including Stella herself, is saying she did nothing wrong. What's being said is that the coffee was served ridiculously negligently hot.

Here's more info (WARNING - contains photo of her actual burns):

http://pratlaw.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/an-old-posting-i-always-wanted-to-have-referenced/

solstyse wrote:

Not a bad idea, but I'm still young enough to need the parts she burned, while she's old enough that it doesn't matter.

Honestly, that's just a disgusting thing to say. Her lap is every bit as important to her as yours is to you.

See, if anything, you're proving my point with that article.

The person who was 100% holding the cup is only 20% at fault for trying to drink it with the wrong orifice. The law regarding the temperature at which drinks could be served was written AFTER the incident, not before. So, regardless of what her injuries were, She was still the one holding the cup. And she apparently didn't waste a drop. How, if not by purpose, do you spill the entire contents of a cup on yourself? I suppose the other 80% was telekinesis. Some McDonalds employee touched their temples, said, "Ohmmmm." and the cup tried to rape her, right?

Okay, so McDonalds should have had to pay her medical bills, any wages she couldn't earn during her recovery, and maybe a little retribution. But half a million dollars? No way. I doubt that the manager of that McDonalds will have that kind of money pass through his/her fingers in a lifetime.

To me, the moral of that McDonalds story is that you can work hard, earn an honest living, and struggle your whole life, or you can be a clumbsy oaf who gets lucky enough to be considered only 20% liable for an action that you 100% committed so that some sappy jury can make a lump-sum payment of money that you did nothing to earn..

And you're right. It IS disgusting to say "Not a bad idea, but I'm still young enough to need the parts she burned, while she's old enough that it doesn't matter." It was also completely sarcastic. If you remember, this McDonalds incident set off a rash of people "accipurposely" hurting themselves seeking large settlements. To me, this coffee hag symbolizes the beginning of the "What I do is everyone else's fault but my own." mentallity that plagues modern society. Each time a small business closes, or some person who is obviously trash starts screaming in my face that I'm going to have to deal with a lawsuit for their stupidity, I hate the woman they got the idea from even more.

Charolotte Caxton · February 24, 2013

solstyse wrote:

Each time a small business closes, or some person who is obviously trash starts screaming in my face that I'm going to have to deal with a lawsuit for their stupidity, I hate the woman they got the idea from even more.

I do not think the old lady who gave herself third degree burns with a cup of coffee did it with the intent of getting rich off of it.

I think her lawyers recognized that serving a beverage at a dangerous temperature was gross negligence.

Hating the lady for the copycat lawsuits is misplaced hatred, you should instead be angry at those that tried to make money by hurting themselves intentionally, not her for unintentionally burning herself so badly.

Like you have repeatedly pointed out, it is no one’s fault but their own for what they do, so blaming the poor lady who seriously got burned is anti your point, I think.

Paul Hexem · February 24, 2013

solstyse IS right, though. It's called setting a precedent. She hurt herself and decided to get lawyers and sue. Sure, it may have been their idea how much, but it was still her that went after the people that sold her the coffee.

And once she did it, every other idiot in the country saw that stupidity pays off after all.

Charolotte Caxton · February 24, 2013

Gadget Portal wrote:

solstyse IS right, though. It's called setting a precedent. She hurt herself and decided to get lawyers and sue. Sure, it may have been their idea how much, but it was still her that went after the people that sold her the coffee.

And once she did it, every other idiot in the country saw that stupidity pays off after all.

Right, but it is not her fault when others copycat her frivolously.

She got third degree burns from coffee. Have you ever had coffee? Why should it be that hot?

If I spelt coffee in my lap today I would at most say ow and be embarrassed and have to go home and change, but to have to have skin grafts on my crotchal area and two years of treatment? Hell yeah I would sue for a billion dollars and encourage the rest of the world to do the same.

solstyse · February 24, 2013

You're right. The attempt to copycat is something she can't be blamed for. but the way that law works, because it is precident based, means that the sucess of those copycat cases go squarely back to that cup of coffee. Her injuries sucked. And if I was her, then yeah, I'd want a bit more than just doctor bills paid. But if I got enough to cover medical expenses, lost wages, and just a bit extra, then I'd be satisfied. Half a million is just plain greedy.

And lets not forget that the law that McDonalds was found negligent for breaking wasn't written until after the incident had already occurred. I find that disturbing too.

Charolotte Caxton · February 24, 2013

I do not think that having your genital area suffer third degree burns is worth less than half a million dollars. Greedy does not apply here, no matter how old she was, genitals are very important. They are not only for sex.

The law that McDonalds was found negligent for breaking should not even have to have been written. If you serve a customer something that has the potential to seriously harm them, you should provide a warning.

solstyse · February 24, 2013

Okay. It may be worth that much money. But since the person who spilled it was her, shouldn't she have sued herself instead of the people who sold it to her?

Charolotte Caxton · February 24, 2013

No, because the damage inflicted was not because of the spilling but because it was dangerously and unnecessarily hot.

If she had ordered molten lava and accidentally spilled it on herself, then everyone could laugh at her for being an idiot. Coffee should not be so hot that it can cause third degree burns. Imagine if she had tried to drink it?

BothamFidor · February 24, 2013

I hate cold coffee.

Fidor

(This stupid woman is the reason McD's serves even worse coffee now than it did before.)

Jadeclaw Denfu · February 24, 2013

Coffee must be brewed at 100°C (212°F) to get a decent taste out of it.
And in Germany, if beverages and food is kept warm, it must be kept above 72°C (162°F) for hygienic reasons.
72°C is the cut-off temperature for E.Coli and Legionella pneumophila.

McDonalds coffee is of acceptable quality over here, as here everyone with an IQ above that of an amoeba knows,
that coffee is to be served hot.

solstyse · February 25, 2013

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

No, because the damage inflicted was not because of the spilling but because it was dangerously and unnecessarily hot.

If she had ordered molten lava and accidentally spilled it on herself, then everyone could laugh at her for being an idiot. Coffee should not be so hot that it can cause third degree burns. Imagine if she had tried to drink it?

Are you saying that if she had not spilled it the burns would still be there? Look, I could agree to a reasonable insurance settlement. That's what insurance is for. And i could agree to more, if it had been someone else who spilled it on her.

But if she had the brains to actually hold the cup while removing the lid, which is something that 99% of the world has figured out long before they spend 1/15th of the time being alive as she's had, it wouldn't have happened. So how is a person, corporation, or entity that was not even there 80% responsible for her poor decision making?

If she had tried to drink the coffee instead of dumping the entire contents in her lap then she would have scalded her lip, said, "Ouch." and ended up staring longingly at the coffee while she remained thirsty for an extra couple of minutes. I can tall you that much from experience. Then again, I actually hold the cup that I drink from.

And nomatter how painful the burns were, the only monetary damages were her medical bills. There is no career she was absent from. There are no college courses she had to drop. Those intangibles simply don't exist for a person of her age.

Also, saying McDonalds was negligent for making coffee that was perfectly legal at the time is like suing a car company because you got into a crash driving a model that existed before airbags because it doesn't have airbags.

Seriously, nomatter what the temperature of coffee is. you should be well aware that using your lady parts to hold it is a bad idea. And whether you expect third degree burns or not, you certainly know it's not going to tickle.

Charolotte Caxton · February 25, 2013

solstyse wrote:

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

No, because the damage inflicted was not because of the spilling but because it was dangerously and unnecessarily hot.

If she had ordered molten lava and accidentally spilled it on herself, then everyone could laugh at her for being an idiot. Coffee should not be so hot that it can cause third degree burns. Imagine if she had tried to drink it?

Are you saying that if she had not spilled it the burns would still be there?

No, I am saying that if the coffee had not been so dangerously hot it would not have burned her as badly as it did when she spilled it onto herself.

ImaTest1488314069 · February 25, 2013

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

solstyse wrote:

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

No, because the damage inflicted was not because of the spilling but because it was dangerously and unnecessarily hot.

If she had ordered molten lava and accidentally spilled it on herself, then everyone could laugh at her for being an idiot. Coffee should not be so hot that it can cause third degree burns. Imagine if she had tried to drink it?

Are you saying that if she had not spilled it the burns would still be there?

No, I am saying that if the coffee had not been so dangerously hot it would not have burned her as badly as it did when she spilled it onto herself.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, but..yes it would have. I'll explain why...(and this negates the information the "law" has in place to ensure a hot product is not too hot-as they still are). If the law were truly intended to make something, like hot beverages, safer, it wouldn't have the limit still set as high as it actually is. It's still well above the temp that can cause significant damage.

An approximate one-second exposure to 160° F water will result in third degree burns Where the water is 130° F, an approximate half-minute exposure will result in third degree burns. This is the reason that the Consumer Product Safety Commission suggests that water heaters be set to a maximum temperature of 120° F, even though an approximate ten minute expsoure to water heated to this temperature can result in third degree burns.

A safe temperature for hot water is 110° F, which exposure to results in third degree burns in approximately ten hours.3 Even though this is a 'relatively-safe' temperature, exposure to water set at 110° F is painful; the human pain threshold is around 106-108° F.

So, spilling your coffee on yourself, at most temps coffee gets to, can still very easily cause major problems, both internally and externally.

Personally I'm not so sure I believe the % they say she had severe burns on. Though I've seen the pictures and don't doubt for a moment she was very, very hurt. The % of skin it included, imo, was inflated.(just my opinion though). The biggest reason why her injuries were considered the degree they were, is because it included the perinium. That alone makes ANY burn automatically go from minor, skipping over moderate and heading straight to major. Age, also plays a factor, as well as any underlying health issues. All of which will also increase healing time and the need for more intense treatment. Like I said, I dont doubt her injuries, at all. I dout the exact severity. I've had a burn similar to what happened to her(different cause, though still my fault) and it was NOT considered as severe, because of the area covered, my age, and the absence of underlying health concerns.

Some burns can look much, much, much worse than they actually are too. Mine looked horrendous, for a long time too.

I agree that her monetary compensation was over the top. Not that she deserved nothing, of course. But despite the coffee being held at the temp is was, she still is the primary cause for the burn. Had the coffee been at 140, it still would have burned her having poured the whole thing on herself. The cotton fabric not only acted as an insulator but also spread the luquid further-causing even more burn. Cotton has a tendancy to do that sort of thing. Taking too long to remove that clothing, would also contribute to how severe the burn can be. Again, not saying all her fault, not by a long shot.

I also agree that the company shouldn't be sued for breaking a law that did not exist at the time. That was just poor judgment on the judicial system. Such restroactive things do not happen with most other areas of the law. You could probably think of a million instances that would have been illegal if they'd been committed before the laws took place. But, in most cases, you can't implement punishment for breaking a law that was not in place. Punishment for the incident happening at all, sure. But the "it was/is unlawful" part shouldn't come into play until the law actually is.

Both were at some degree of fault and the fact that this was not recognized by the judicial system is what lead to the opening of the floodgates for other similar lawsuits. There is absolutely no denying that, truthfully. Loopholes, once annouced(or other ways of "getting around, generally speaking) will spread like wildfire.

Charolotte Caxton · February 25, 2013

Interesting. Well then, I suppose we should all go back to hating the stupid clumsy hag for daring to scald herself so badly and having the gall to seek compensation for her injuries.

Also, we must hate her as well for allowing all the other low lifes to copy cat her. What a wicked person she must be announcing loopholes and setting precedents. She was old too, obviously not worth much at all.

ImaTest1488314069 · February 25, 2013

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Interesting. Well then, I suppose we should all go back to hating the stupid clumsy hag for daring to scald herself so badly and having the gall to seek compensation for her injuries.

Also, we must hate her as well for allowing all the other low lifes to copy cat her. What a wicked person she must be announcing loopholes and setting precedents. She was old too, obviously not worth much at all.

You seem a bit hostile, because I didn't say any of that whatsoever. Didn't even imply it, or come close. That would be another poster.

She did have some fault in the matter, as did the company for serving a beverage at that high of a temp to begin with. Both were negligent to some degree. I didn't say anyone should hate her. I didn't call her names either, nor would I. I also said she should be given something for her pain and suffering-just not what she did get. Entirely her fault others used the same kind of ignorance with regards to the law, in order to get compensated for preventable acts? No, it's not. I didn't say that. I said the fact that the judicial system allowed a ruling that said the company broke a law(which did NOT exist at the time) is what contributed to opening the floodgates for this sort of lawsuit.

Would it have happened eventually anyway? Probably. Humans seem really sue happy when they feel they've been wronged. But I won't pretend like her case did not have any sort of effect on some of the lawsuits we've seen(the world over at that, not just the US).

Charolotte Caxton · February 25, 2013

ImaTest wrote:

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

Interesting. Well then, I suppose we should all go back to hating the stupid clumsy hag for daring to scald herself so badly and having the gall to seek compensation for her injuries.

Also, we must hate her as well for allowing all the other low lifes to copy cat her. What a wicked person she must be announcing loopholes and setting precedents. She was old too, obviously not worth much at all.

You seem a bit hostile, because I didn't say any of that whatsoever. Didn't even imply it, or come close. That would be another poster.

She did have some fault in the matter, as did the company for serving a beverage at that high of a temp to begin with. Both were negligent to some degree. I didn't say anyone should hate her. I didn't call her names either, nor would I. I also said she should be given something for her pain and suffering-just not what she did get. Entirely her fault others used the same kind of ignorance with regards to the law, in order to get compensated for preventable acts? No, it's not. I didn't say that. I said the fact that the judicial system allowed a ruling that said the company broke a law(which did NOT exist at the time) is what contributed to opening the floodgates for this sort of lawsuit.

Would it have happened eventually anyway? Probably. Humans seem really sue happy when they feel they've been wronged. But I won't pretend like her case did not have any sort of effect on some of the lawsuits we've seen(the world over at that, not just the US).

Sorry, didn't mean to sound hostile.

Amethyst Jetaime · February 25, 2013

solstyse wrote:

...And nomatter how painful the burns were, the only monetary damages were her medical bills. There is no career she was absent from. There are no college courses she had to drop. Those intangibles simply don't exist for a person of her age.

Also, saying McDonalds was negligent for making coffee that was perfectly legal at the time is like suing a car company because you got into a crash driving a model that existed before airbags because it doesn't have airbags.

Seriously, nomatter what the temperature of coffee is. you should be well aware that using your lady parts to hold it is a bad idea. And whether you expect third degree burns or not, you certainly know it's not going to tickle.

Regardless of the merits of this case, I am appalled by your attitude toward the elderly, first with your name calling and comments about her lap not being worth anything and now this.

How do you know she didn't have a 'career" or college courses to drop? My own grandmother was a paid private duty nurse way into her 80's and after she "retired" continued to do light nursing on a voluntary basis at a nursing home way into her 90's. She lived to 110 and was still sharp as a tack the day she died. As a licensed nurse she was required to keep up with medical advances and took courses at her local medical college periodically to do so. Many retired people take college courses that they pay for and/or have second carreers.

We will all get old, if we are lucky. You better hope that when you get old no one treats you this way, writes you off as useless and calls you an old hag because I doubt you'll like it at all.

As to the merits of this case, if you read the entire post about it in the link given you would have seen that MdDonalds not only knew that coffee that hot would cause sever burns, but they had over 700 complaints from people that were burned . They also admitted that they had no intention of lowering the temperature even though they know that people want to drink the coffee they order almost immediately. There can't be laws made to cover every contingency that causes people to be injured, So in a civil law suit involving a tort, the plantif only has to show negligence which means that the company did not act in a reasonable manner and knowingly maintained a hazzardous condition. Even the judge called McDonalds’ conduct reckless, callous and willful. It also said that she didn't get the full settlement because she was partly at fault.

Sorry your local pool was closed down and you have to drive a whole 30 minutes to another one. Such a tragedy!! But if you want to be mad at someone be mad at the people that filed the suit against the pool and your local officials who apparently didn't see the need to have proper liability insurance to cover such a contingency.

Perrie Juran · February 25, 2013

ImaTest wrote:

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

solstyse wrote:

Charolotte Caxton wrote:

No, because the damage inflicted was not because of the spilling but because it was dangerously and unnecessarily hot.

If she had ordered molten lava and accidentally spilled it on herself, then everyone could laugh at her for being an idiot. Coffee should not be so hot that it can cause third degree burns. Imagine if she had tried to drink it?

Are you saying that if she had not spilled it the burns would still be there?

No, I am saying that if the coffee had not been so dangerously hot it would not have burned her as badly as it did when she spilled it onto herself.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, but..yes it would have. I'll explain why...(and this negates the information the "law" has in place to ensure a hot product is not too hot-as they still are). If the law were truly intended to make something, like hot beverages, safer, it wouldn't have the limit still set as high as it actually is. It's still well above the temp that can cause significant damage.

An approximate one-second exposure to 160° F water will result in third degree burns Where the water is 130° F, an approximate half-minute exposure will result in third degree burns. This is the reason that the

Consumer Product Safety Commission

suggests that water heaters be set to a maximum temperature of 120° F, even though an approximate ten minute expsoure to water heated to this temperature can result in third degree burns.

A safe temperature for hot water is 110° F, which exposure to results in third degree burns in approximately ten hours.3 Even though this is a 'relatively-safe' temperature, exposure to water set at 110° F is painful; the human pain threshold is around 106-108° F.

So, spilling your coffee on yourself, at most temps coffee gets to, can still very easily cause major problems, both internally and externally.

Personally I'm not so sure I believe the % they say she had severe burns on. Though I've seen the pictures and don't doubt for a moment she was very, very hurt. The % of skin it included, imo, was inflated.(just my opinion though). The biggest reason why her injuries were considered the degree they were, is because it included the perinium. That alone makes ANY burn automatically go from minor, skipping over moderate and heading straight to major. Age, also plays a factor, as well as any underlying health issues. All of which will also increase healing time and the need for more intense treatment. Like I said, I dont doubt her injuries, at all. I dout the exact severity. I've had a burn similar to what happened to her(different cause, though still my fault) and it was NOT considered as severe, because of the area covered, my age, and the absence of underlying health concerns.

Some burns can look much, much, much worse than they actually are too. Mine looked horrendous, for a long time too.

I agree that her monetary compensation was over the top. Not that she deserved nothing, of course. But despite the coffee being held at the temp is was, she still is the primary cause for the burn. Had the coffee been at 140, it still would have burned her having poured the whole thing on herself. The cotton fabric not only acted as an insulator but also spread the luquid further-causing even more burn. Cotton has a tendancy to do that sort of thing. Taking too long to remove that clothing, would also contribute to how severe the burn can be. Again, not saying all her fault, not by a long shot.

I also agree that the company shouldn't be sued for breaking a law that did not exist at the time. That was just poor judgment on the judicial system. Such restroactive things do not happen with most other areas of the law. You could probably think of a million instances that would have been illegal if they'd been committed before the laws took place. But, in most cases, you can't implement punishment for breaking a law that was not in place. Punishment for the incident happening at all, sure. But the "it was/is unlawful" part shouldn't come into play until the law actually is.

Both were at some degree of fault and the fact that this was not recognized by the judicial system is what lead to the opening of the floodgates for other similar lawsuits. There is absolutely no denying that, truthfully. Loopholes, once annouced(or other ways of "getting around, generally speaking) will spread like wildfire.

Part of the answer to the question is in your explanation above.

The burn from a one second exposure @ 190 degrees will be more severe than at 140 degrees because of how long it takes for the heat to dissipate.

That is why the immediate response to burning your self is to get the affected area cooled off. I'e., using cold water. (disclaimer ---I AM NOT A LICENSED DOCTOR).

The coffee in the McDonald's case was inordinately hot and Mc'D's had ignored complaints, hence why they were found partly responsible.

Liability laws in the US allow for this. Someone is speeding and you Jay Walk in front of their car. The law allows for the Judge or Jury to assign a percentage of fault. I went through three years of litigation with a family member over this. Finally settled out of Court (they offered) when they realized in this instance it was not going in their favor.

As I understand it, this is also true in Maritime Law. The law assumes all accidents were avoidable. You will never see a finding of NO FAULT on both parties involved in a Maritime suit.

Dillon Levenque · February 25, 2013

You're right about the cold water and it is really a shame her grandson didn't know that. Don't know how much damage that would have prevented but it certainly would have helped.

As for the amount of the judgement (and the almost $3 Million amount is really what caused this whole thing to become so famous as a 'frivolous' lawsuit) I don't know and since I'll never read the transcripts I never will know, but based on the amount first requested and the offer McDonald's made, I have to think they can blame themselves at least a bit for the massive punitive damage award. More from wikipedia on the offers and counter offers (bolding mine):

"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 loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle."

When a multi-bazillion dollar corporation is seen in court as sneering at a 79 year-old grandma who was hurt by a product the corporation had been warned about many times, it should expect some repercussions. It might not be fair, it might not be to the letter of the law. But seems to me you would have to be really stupid to not expect that to happen.

Perrie Juran · February 26, 2013

Dillon Levenque wrote:

You're right about the cold water and it is really a shame her grandson didn't know that. Don't know how much damage that would have prevented but it certainly would have helped.

As for the amount of the judgement (and the almost $3 Million amount is really what caused this whole thing to become so famous as a 'frivolous' lawsuit) I don't know and since I'll never read the transcripts I never will know, but based on the amount first requested and the offer McDonald's made, I have to think they can blame themselves at least a bit for the massive punitive damage award. More from wikipedia on the offers and counter offers (bolding mine):

"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 loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.

Instead, the company offered only $800

. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle."

When a multi-bazillion dollar corporation is seen in court as sneering at a 79 year-old grandma who was hurt by a product the corporation had been warned about many times, it should expect some repercussions. It might not be fair, it might not be to the letter of the law. But seems to me you would have to be really stupid to not expect that to happen.

Well there was more too it than just sneering at a 79 year old grandma.

There are two parts to damages, actual & punitive. The purpose of the Punitive (related to punishment) Damages is to force the defendant to change their behaviour. In the trial it came out that,

"Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices."

700 people injured is NOT a small number. McD's KNEW their coffee posed a real hazard beyond what Grandma might have realized could happen. Spill hot coffee, I think we all know it hurts. Third degree burns, I would have never expected that. Would you if you were not trained in this?

So the Jury found McD's 80% responsible and Grandma 20%. If they had not settled out of Court before all the appeals were done, Grandma would have only received 80% of the awarded damages.

On the surface it looks a bit frivolous, but when we consider all the facts, the amount of the Punitive Damages is not all that outlandish. It essentially amounted to two days of coffee sales for McD's. As a percentage of their coffee sales over a ten year period, that is a mighty small number.

Dillon Levenque · February 26, 2013

I suppose it is obvious I agree with you (and with the punitive fine); I was just emphasizing another reason why McDonald's wasn't cut any slack by the jury. Punishment can be ameliorated by the good behavior of the malefactor or it can be made worse by bad behavior. Seems to me McDonald's handled it just about as wrong as they possibly could have.

Allisah Aviator · February 26, 2013

Not directed at you Dillon. Has anyone ever held a cup of coffee form anyplace, McDonalds, Burger or the local family owned Carry out restaurant? The cup can very hot and no matter how old or young someone is, people can be clumsy or react to a situation, even trying to get the lid off fast of a cup that may be uncomfortable to hold. You don't always get a drink holder in a car even for 1 cup of anything especially in a drive through. Starbucks has always used paper wraps for their cups as far as I can recall and there is a reason for that. McDonalds has not always used them. I think lawsuits made them inclined to. Calling elderly people names, putting them down and thinking you have any right to decide what the heck the quality of their life is at their age is not only a severly disturbing thought process but it's a disgusting part of a person's personality to think that way of other human beings. I am not perfect and I am not old. I am not disabled in any way, but i can drop things. It can happen.

solstyse · February 27, 2013

My attitude toward this clumbsy, greedy oaf does not reflect my attitude toward the elderly. Sure, I mentioned her age, because nobody can argue that she's old. But placing a freshly-bought cup of coffee between your legs and trying to open it whileNOT holding it steady in your hands somehow doesn't have everyone convinced that she's dumb.

It's the overcompensation that forms my attitude toward her. Judgement about her quality of life? Let's see... Would being able to work cause her to have no source of income? Nope. There's disability and Social Security. Thus, in a purely monetary sense, it is an undeniable fact that she had less to lose than someone who is younger.

Gaining almost half a million dollars from this puts her way, way too well off for her to need my sympathy. Ever try getting a lawyer for a legit case? Ask an assault victim how easy it was to get representation. Ask them the hell they went through to even try to get their medical expenses covered.

Now, McDonalds should have settled. But, the fact remains that she wasn't even in the restaurant when the coffee got spilled. And the whole arguement about the coffee being so damn evil is completely bunk

How many people kept going back for the coffee? 700 burns, compared to how many millions of cups of coffee sold is what percentage, exactly? Yeah, looked at it from that angle, the number is actually quite small.

And think of how many dangerous things people handle daily. If you buy sulphuric acid to unclog a drain, and end up wearing it in your lap, by the logic of this case, then the hardware store is on the hook for massive amounts of money. It wouldn't matter that the container that it's in is in perfect working order, and that if handled properly, the contents will not and should not touch skin. It doesn't matter who's fault the transfer of the liquid from container to skin is. the company was negligent for selling the product to a clumbsy person.

That's why I can't get with this "Oh gasp, if only it wasn't so hot!" mentallity. If the temperature of the coffee had been lower, then similar injuries would have resulted. Perhaps not quite as severe, but she would still be hurting. If, however, she had the brains to keep the coffee away from where it doesn't belong, and actually hold the cup while removing the lid, she wouldn't have been burned at all. Odds are that's why McDonalds chose not to settle. I'm not saying McD's was 100% right. They should have used their insurance. But, this oaf of a woman has effectively turned being an idiot into a career by getting what she did.

And, earlier, I did say that I'm a darwinist. I'm all for someone getting help in cases where they had little to no control over what happened. But those who have these sort of accidents, well, no.

Perrie Juran · February 27, 2013