Quote:
Originally Posted by NernersHuman
I remember that! As I recall, the moron was driving with the coffee cup BETWEEN HER LEGS, and the coffee burned her inner thighs. And McDonalds had to pay through the nose for her idiocy.
|
Most people don't know the particulars of the case and why McDonald's was found negligent because on the surface it seems so idiotic. The jury found that McDonald's had engaged in "willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the basis for punitive damages." The award was $2.7 million which was reduced to $480k and was eventually settled between the two parties for less. The $2.7 million was approximately 2 days worth of coffee sales for McDonald's. The dollar amounts are relative to personal perspective; to most of $2.7 million is a huge sum of money, to McDonald's it's not much of a dent, relatively speaking. And the plaintiff was found 20% responsible.
McDonald's was found negligent based primarily on the fact they intentionally served their coffee at much hotter than the industry standards and guidelines. It takes less than three seconds to produce a third-degree burn at 190 degrees, about 12 to 15 seconds at 180 degrees and about 20 seconds at 160 degrees. McDonald's brews its coffee at between 195 and 205 degrees, and keeps it (if not served immediately) at between 180 and 190 degrees. This is approximately 20 degrees hotter than standard local practice in the area that it occurred.
McDonald's had already received at least 700 complaints prior to the incident and even paid others up to and more than $500k in settlements (for scalding injuries), but they made no changes to their practice nor did they ever consult burn experts for input despite the history clearly showing that they knew the risks of severe injury.
They were found to have a disregard for human safety. One of their witnesses essentially, the severe injury is so rare, they won't change practices for it. Jurors have been noted as saying this attitude was one of the turning factors for them as most believed the case on the surface was as frivolous as most of us thought.
She was holding it between her legs while she to took the cover off to add the cream and sugar.
I'm sure most of is have spilled coffee or hot tea as some point in our lives, did ours leave you with 3rd degree burns that required 7 days in the hospital and skin grafts? Within the facts of this actual case, there was absolutely negligence on McDonald's part. The reason she sued was because they refused to pay her related medical expenses.
_____
All of that aside, I personally don't think people should be able to sue because they're stupid. After nearly every paper/case study I had to write in my graduate business law, I would add a summary paragraph of essentially why I didn't agree with the law rewarding dumbasses; of course, I used more intelligent wording.
I had a hard time writing papers about how I think a case should turn because my opinion didn't match with the law. I don't think that you should be rewarded if there are safety warnings, and you *choose* to ignore them. For example, if you do decide to use your flat iron while sleeping, that's your problem not the Babyliss's IMHO.
The sleeping one really gets me laughing. It is like when you read on a peanut butter jar, "may contain peanuts". I understand that there are very valid reasons that they put these warnings on labels; I just really wish that there were not people out there who would actually use the products in these ways. What are some of the funny warnings that you have read on labels? What are your thoughts on it? Please share!!!
