Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Hot Cup a Joe = Dough

As long as I'm stealing form Think Progressive...

Jon brings up one of my favorite "lawsuits are bad" myths, the notorious McDonald's coffee suit:

FACT: As a result of her injuries, 79 year old Stella Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years

FACT: Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald's about her
injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost
$11,000. McDonald's countered by offering her $800.
FACT: The original, $2.7 million award was equal to two days of McDonald’s
corporation coffee sales.
FACT: On appeal, a judge lowered
the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
FACT: During trial, McDonald's admitted that it had known about the risk of
serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992,
McDonald's received more than 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of
the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to
the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks.
This is the tort reform poster child but those who mock it don't bother with the, well, facts. All some people hear is some woman got millions of dollars because she spilled hot coffee in her own lap.

I've heard it many times, "What an idiot. The bitch spills coffee on herself and sues because its hot. What did she expect? And a judge [or jury] went along with it. Boy, lawsuits are out of control. " Or some such superficial two-dimensional thinking. I mean, coffee is hot, right, so what's the problem? Gosh, there can't possibly be varying degrees of hot - even unreasonably hot - no just hot or not.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of bad decisions in lawsuits, but I think this one isn't the outrage that so many think it is.

12 comments:

Billy Dennis said...

Fact: This person decided on her own to put a cup of steaming hot coffee.

Fact: A have a nephew in kindergarten who understands that "hot" equals "dangerous."

Fact: The fact that a judge reduced the award is a fact that argues in favor or tort reform, not against it.

Fact: The coffee that comes out of YOUR drop machine at YOUR home will also cause third degree burns if you place it between your legs.

Dave said...

More Facts!

Fact: I take a hot shower and it's not dangerous. Also, it's often hot outside in the summer here in Central Illinois but not always dangerously so.

Fact: (well more like a question): If the legal system is so out of control, why aren't you (and I) running down to Hardees to spill coffee on ourselves?

Fact: McDonald's REDUCED the temperature of its coffee following the suit. This suggests there are indeed varying degrees (literally) of hot.

Fact: The Judge reducing the settlement WITHIN the legal system and without any help from tort reformers, would suggest there are balances within the system AS IT EXISTS.

Billy Dennis said...

Even more facts:

Fact: Do you really think that there aren't people who (figuratively speaking) go down to their local Hardees and spill coffee on themselves (or slip on "spills" in grocery stores, etc.) in hopes of winning a lawsuit?

Fact: The reason I don't do this is because there is no amount of money anyone can pay me to deliberately spill hot coffee on my penis.

Fact: Reducing the judgement on appeal is a sign the system works? Tell that to McDonalds, who spent millions defending itself. Tell it to companies who spend millions defending themselves from nonsense suits. Tell it to mom and pop businesses who don't have big pockets.

Fact: Even if I were inclined to spill hot coffee on my penis to win a lawsuit, I wouldn't do it at the local Hardees. I would get in my car and rive down to Madison County, Illinois and do it there. Well, that's how I would have done before tort reform closed down the lawsuit mill that the court system had turned into down there. Damn! Another missed opportunity.

Fact: Huge corporations and insurance companies do not pay these huge settlements. We do, through higher insurance rates and through higher costs for goods and services.

Fact: By lowering the temps, there's a lot of coffee out there getting too cold to drink a lot faster these days, thereby wasting customer's money. Did you really think McDonalds served hoit coffee simply to hurt people too stupid to know YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PUT CUPS OF HOT COFFEE BETWEEN YOUR LEGS. Third degree burns on your crotch are the logical, expected and predictable results of putting hot coffee between your legs.

Dave said...

"Third degree burns on your crotch are the logical, expected and predictable results of putting hot coffee between your legs."

WTF!

Yes, very "logical" because there is only one temperature of "hot" - skin melting, scalding.

Look, I have actually spilled "hot" coffee and tea on myself many times in my life and not once did I have to spend a minute in the hospital, much less a week.

"Huge corporations and insurance companies do not pay these huge settlements. We do, through higher insurance rates and through higher costs for goods and services."

Therefore lawsuits should just be done away with since they only hurt you and me. Seriously, why allow anyone to sue?

Dave said...

Facity, Fact, Facts

-McDonalds required their coffee kept at 185 degrees Fahrenheit, plus or minus 5 degrees, significantly higher than other establishments. [Coffee is usually served at 135 to 140 degrees]

-An expert testified that 180 degree liquids will cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
McDonalds knew before this accident that burn hazards exist with any foods served above 140 degrees.

-McDonalds knew that its coffee would burn drinkers at the temperature they served it.

-McDonalds research showed that customers consumed coffee immediately while driving.

-McDonalds knew of over 700 people burned by its coffee, including many third-degree burns similar to Ms. Liebeck's.

-McDonalds had received previous requests from consumers and safety organizations to lower their coffee temperature.

Therfore, McDonalds' did nothing wrong? And ewven if they did, we have to pay for any settlement in the form of higher prices so just forget it. McDonalds would have lowered the temperature of the coffee anyway, right?

Billy Dennis said...

In the real world -- no the world where loyal democrats are expected to defent the trial lawyers association -- people expect coffee to be hot enough to possibly burn. Common sense says that even coffee that might not be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns is still hot anough to effen' hurt. Therefore, putting hot coffee between your legs is a very, very stupid act. And as I explained "too hot" is a matter os subjective opinion. Some people like their coffee that hot.

I suppose we are an an impasse. I believe people are responsible for the results of their own stupid actions. Ca Sera Sera.

Carl Nyberg said...

I love how the American Right loves to embrace "local control" of government, but somehow derides juries.

Apparently when there's a group of 12 people armed with a thorough understanding of the facts the Right doesn't believe Americans can make appropriate decisions.

Anonymous said...

I imagine that soon we will find out that there are various degrees of sharp, cold, hard, soft ect. all courtesy of our legal community desperatley trying to protect us. I feel like an old man when I long for the days of accidents, where it was not important to find someone to blame/sue for every f***ing mishap. We are a nation of whimps protected by a legion of lawyers, God forbid white hot cofee scalds the genetals of every knuckle dragging moron on the planet causing at least a temporary reduction in the propogation of week minded coffee crotching idiots.

Billy Dennis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Billy Dennis said...

"12 people armed with a thorough understanding of the facts ..."

Carl, have you ever BEEN to Madison County, Illinois? The school fight song down there is the "Dueling Banjos" from "Deliverance."

Anonymous said...

I assume your referring to the poptart case. That is a clear example of not being able to find 12 intelligent jurors. And a good reason for tort reform same with alot of the tabocco rulings. But it doesn't disprove that the ruling in the McDonalds case was indeed correct. And to Mr. Anonymous this may shatter your world but there are varying degree's of hot. Some degree's feel good and are desired others melt the flesh off in 3 seconds. But I guess it takes a moron to understand that.

Anonymous said...

Doh! Guess I'm going to get flamed now for typo's in my last comment and I can't edit it. Man I'm such a moron. :)