Natural Selection at work

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Was McDonalds adhering to State law when they served hot coffee?

And wasn't it the woman who spilled the hot coffee on her crotch who was negligent?

You underestimate the ridiculousness of our civil court system.

No, you just don't bother to google anything to make sure you know what you're talking about before you go off about it. Here are some actual facts about the McDonald's Hot Coffee case:

"McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills. I'll add, her initial request was for less than $10,000

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years."

That, Dell, is how a business loses a civil case. There has to be a pattern of wanton recklessness and disregard for human safety. I just don't see how anyone proves that here. I mean, I have my own opinions about letting kids play with guns, but this place has not, as best I could tell, ever had a fatality or even serious injury.

Although I'm frustrated that untrue tropes get trotted out again and again (like the hot coffee one) I do highly recommend you watch the documentary "Hot Coffee" which is about civil lawsuits against companies and tort reform. I did a quick google search and it's currently available in its entirety on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx7jAop3srA

It's very entertaining and very informative. It also comes down hard on our legal system, but not because people file frivolous suits.