Sue your college for unemployment woes?

[Skud]

40% of her body did seem a bit much...like a whole pot's worth of spilling.

[mapes]

I have!
1. She was 79
2. It was not a lose lid as rumored.
3. She was a passenger, her grand son was driving
4. She wanted to add something to her coffee(e.g. cream)
5. The grandson parked the car so she could add it
6. She put it in her lap
7. She pulled the lid off while holding the coffee between her legs in the passeanger seat.
8. The resulting burns were 6% of her skin in the thighs, groin and buttocks area.

My Take on it:
Since the grandson handed the coffee to her I guess he didn't have enough sensation in his hands to know it was hot as hell and also didn't feel the need to help her by putting the additive in the coffee for her. So instead of doing the proper thing for his grandmother and add the item himself AND feeling the coffee was way to hot for drinking then allowed her to continue with the intention of immediately drinking the coffee after adding what she wanted.
After handing the cup off coffee to my granny I would not allow her to add the stuff to it, I would have done it for her and hopefully not in my lap. Plus I would not allow her to drink it without cooling it off a little in the drink holder as it sat on the floor board or in the cars drink holder.
Don't get me wrong, I am torn on her injury, but I stand by my statement and it was human error that could have been avoided using common sense and senses.
McDonald was in the wrong by having their coffee too hot (180F +-5F) and it's unfortunate that actually the only way to get McDonalds to change that policy was for this to happen. Then on the other hand I believe it might could have been handled thru a civil suit that is if she hadn't been burned so bad.

It was 3rd degree burns over 6% and lesser burns over 16 %. She needed skin grafts and a week long hospital say as well as two years of out patient treatment. McD's had settled out of court in 700 other cases. Showing a trend of negligence.

The Jury found McD's 80% at fault and the woman 20% at fault. She had initially wanted McD's to cover her hospital stay of 20k. They offered 800 bucks. Jusry awarded her a shitload. the judge reduced it to 650k. Repeatedly she had offered to settle out of court for 20k and they refused.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49? cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[10] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.

[edit] Attempts to settle

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a 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.[5] 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.[5]

[edit] Evidence presented to the jury

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180?190 ?F (82?88 ?C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 ?F (60 ?C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 ?F coffee like that McDonald?s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 ?F (71 ?C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false.[12]) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that, because those who purchased the coffee typically wanted to drive a distance with the coffee, the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[5] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[13]

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.[5] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 ?F (54 ?C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[14] The trial lasted from August 8?17, 1994, and the twelve-person jury reached their verdict before Judge Robert H. Scott on August 18.[15]

[edit] Verdict and settlement

Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[5] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[16] Liebeck died on August 4, 2004, at the age of 91.

[Skud]

Anyone ever take a hasty bite out of a fresh out of the oven pizza slice when they were younger and burn the hell out of the roof of their mouth? I'm thinking: lawsuit!!!

back to thread...

[DougBob]

Anyone ever take a hasty bite out of a fresh out of the oven pizza slice when they were younger and burn the hell out of the roof of their mouth? I'm thinking: lawsuit!!!

back to thread...