f13.net

With former trial lawyer John Edwards now officially the Democratic nominee for Vice President, expect the wingers to officially link the Democratic ticket to those "outrageous" frivolous lawsuits.  We've all heard about so-called frivolous lawsuits, of which the most "infamous" is the case of the woman who sued McDonald's because its coffee was too hot.
Thanks to paragons of "objective" reporting like John Stossel, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit supposedly exemplifies everything that's wrong with American civil justice.  A woman stupidly spills a little coffee, the story goes, and instead of daubing the coffee off her clothes and getting on with life, she gets a couple million dollars by suing McDonald's.

If it hadn't been so widely reported back in the early 1990's, it would be easy to assume the McDonald's coffee case was an urban myth.  The fact that McDonald's lost a lawsuit filed by a woman who spilled coffee on herself is in fact true.  But just about everything else you've probably heard is wrong or grossly incomplete, and you can bet that whatever comes out of the right wing noise machine will perpetuate the falsehoods about the case.

First of all, it's important to attach a name to the case.  Stella Liebeck was an 81 year old retired retail clerk who spilled coffee while at the drive-through window of an McDonald's in Albuquerque, NM.  If you still think that's not much of a reason to bring a suit against McDonalds, you're not alone; according to 1994 article from the Wall Street Journal, the members of the jury felt the same way:




Over the previous decade McDonald's had received over 700 complaints about its coffee scalding people, including babies.  They had settled all lawsuits out of court, with some payments as high as $500,000.  But McDonald's continued to serve its coffee 20 degrees hotter than any other major restaurant chain.  

Stella Liebeck hadn't originally planned on going to a jury trial.  She had asked for compensatory damages to pay for her skin grafts, but McDonald's offered only $800.  By the end of the trial, however, the jury was convinced that she was entitled $200,000 compensatory damages for her medical costs, which they reduced by $40,000 because she was partially to blame for having spilled the coffee.  

What got the attention, however, was the punitive damages of $2.7 million, equal at the time to 2 days worth of McDonalds's coffee sales.  Remember, this decision was made in light of the fact that McDonald's had long known that its coffee, served 20 degrees hotter than the industry standard, had resulted in hundreds of presumably avoidable second and third degree burns.  But even after all of that, the judge still reduced the punitive award to $480,000--a sizeable sum, but one awarded to an 81 year old plaintiff only because McDonald's was partially to blame for her suffering third degree burns throughout her groin because McDonalds persisted, despite knowing it had caused hundreds of scaldings, in serving coffee that it knew was extremely dangerous.  

So, if you hear people drone on about how John Edwards is on the side of those shark trial lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits like that one against McDonald's because its coffee was too hot, tell them the name Stella Liebeck.  Tell them that 81 year old Stella Liebeck suffered third degree burns and incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical costs for the grafts she needed to repair the skin on her groin, inner thighs and butt. Tell them that Stella Liebeck just wanted McDonald's to pay for the damage they had caused, but McDonald's only offered her $800 for $200,000 worth of medical bills.  Tell them that prior to Stella Liebeck's scalding McDonald's had already heard about over 700 cases of people being seriously burned by their coffee, but they continued to serve it 20 degrees hotter than any other major restaurant chain.  And ask them, if they were Stella Liebeck, or Stella Liebeck was their wife or mother or neighbor, who do they think would be more sympathetic to their modest demand that a major corporation live up to its responsibilities, John Edwards or Dick Cheney?

I knew it was a "real case" in that it actually existed and the settlement won and all, but I hadn't heard the details in terms of that it wasn't just some frivolous lawsuit.

Now, if someone could please enlighten me, how hot is McDonalds coffe over there. I have no idea how it is produced, but over here we take water close to the boiling point to make our coffee, so 20 degree hotter is not really possible.

Who ever knew the McDonald's coffee burn case was legit?
 

Everybody who've heard about Snopes?!
Ie, everybody but you!

Between this board and WTO I probably posted the link to the debunking of the frivolity (I love making up words)

The response to WHY they keep it that hot was on snopes and in the article I read at the time.  Their statement is that drive through customers are the bulk of their coffee sales and polling data suggested that most drive through customers bought their coffee to drink at work, not on the way.  The temperature was chosen so that it would be hot and drinkable 20 minutes after serving.

Stella Liebeck was an 81 year old

*snip*

and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks.

What pisses most folks off about it was that it dismissed the point that she spilled it on herself. Spilling fresh hot coffee in your lap is supposed to hurt....you aren't supposed to do that.

Yes, if you spill coffee on yourself, it's supposed to hurt.  It is not supposed to burn you so badly that it kills nerve endings and prevents you from being able to feel the pain.  I don't think you understand how fucking serious a 3rd degree burn is.

The way the case was PERCEIVED by the teeming masses isn't quite the same as how it actually went down.

Consider, though, that we are discussing the details of the case.....which is more than 90% of the general public has EVER done on this one.

What alternative are you asking for here?

...you do know that this isn't exactly new to this side of the stone age, right?  Are you just now getting on the "people are stupid" soap box?

Without the internet, I'm pretty confident most of this stuff would never have reached the masses.

Forfeiting punis to the state removes the incentive to take a case on contingency.

That is propaganda perpetrated by the insurance company.

I heard about this case in germany, several years ago. Of course, only the "stupid women gets money from McDonalds because she spilled some hot coffee" part WAS actually reported over here.

my idea for tort reform:

If the plaintiff wins, he or she gets all of the money for the nominal and compensatory damages but the money from the punitive damages should go either to the government or a special fund of some kind to be used for some public benefit: eg the health system, schools or maybe even legal aid.

What is the incentive for the plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyers? They have to take on a major organization, spend maybe years in court, high legal fees, etc etc.

Big companies are not big soft targets. Lawyers will only take up their time on these cases if there is a substantial payoff opportunity.

Your idea would only work if the government were also providing the plaintiff's lawyers. On paper I guess it sounds great though.

I'm confused. If I read the story right....

Edwards is a lawyer.

And other lawyers were at some point involved in a court case.

And that court case with the other lawyers had what the author claims is a non-controversial outcome.

And this seems to mean people should/should not vote for Edwards?

American politics is strange.

Its a way for Edward's supporters to 'pre-smear' anyone that questions Edwards record as a prosecutor.  I've heard nothing thus far from any conservative groups that have done so.

Mcdonalds was specifically keeping their coffee at a VERY high temp to keep it warm until you get to work.