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

[Mediocre]

From DailyKOS, a good article about how Republicans will paint Edwards as a "greedy trial lawyer", examining the most-pointed to case, the coffee case, in serious detail.

Story here.

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:

At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens says he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."
At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously.

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?

Interesting stuff.  Skimming the news just doesn't cut it anymore for getting a decent picture of what's going on in the world.

[Madman]

I knew it was legit several years ago. Way to keep up on current news!

[WayAbvPar]

I didn't know it was possible not to know it was a real case.

[Mediocre]

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.  When the verdict happened, in 94 I believe, I was eight.  So, this is the first real piece I've seen done on the case that actually went through the facts rather than just pointing to it as "jury awards gone amok".  Found it interesting.  Sorry if it's redundant info to you.

[Zaphkiel]

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.

    That's because the Republican Noise Machine has determined that it's the posterchild for frivolous lawsuits, and has been using it as such for a decade.   The facts don't matter.

[Der Helm]

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.

Never knew  that she suffer 3rd degree burns. That really IS painfull.

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.


Oh, please, for the love of god, use the metric scale :D

[schild]

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.

Each house is equipped with a direct line to a magma tunnel. In the morning we clean out our adamantium bowls, pour in the water, and sit in in the magma stream for about 15 minutes. The water doesn't boil off due to an adamantium lid that remains tightly sealed for the entire process. As soon as the steaming meter says it's time to add the coffee, we put a small non-permeable bag of coffer into the bowl - we have to use long adamantium tongs, the bowl is very hot, and the water approaches 2,000 jigawatts. We let the coffee steep for about 15 minutes, then we remove a panel from the side of the bowl and pour it into paper cups (lined with adamantium, or else they'd just crumble under the intense heat). We have specially engineered Starbuck huggy things for the cups so that we can hold them - I hear they are made from rocks farmed on Neptune.

All in all, the lady is lucky to not have melted her skin straight to the bone.

What?

[Hanzii]

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

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

But I can understand Der Helms question.
20 degrees fahrenheit is 6.7 celcius. The best water temperature for drip coffee is 93-95 degrees celcius. The actual serving temperature will be lower than that due to the drip process, so theres plenty of room for McD coffee to be 6,7 degrees hotter than other coffees.

[Der Helm]

While Hanzii's Reply was more informative, I'll give Schild an "A" for entertainment.

Thanks to both of you, almost spilled my beer reading ...

[Mediocre]

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

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

Snopes has, as we might like to say, "a fuckload of content".  Thus, heard of snopes =! having read everything on Snopes.  Especially something that fell into my lap, rather than something I was actively researching.

[Alluvian]

Between this board and WTO I probably posted the link to the debunking of the frivolositudity(I love making up words) at snopes and a few other articles at least 5 times in 3 years.

It was well known at the fucking time it wasn't frivolous.  As far as right wing propoganda goes, it was the media and the comedians that made it seem frivolous.  The first place I heard the real case details was actually on the Rush Limbaugh radio show.  Then I read the article he quoted, then it showed up on snopes.  Dennis Miller also had a bit mocking it and then mentioning a few of the facts and switching sides on the issue.  It was part of a larger bit about believing comedians/news agencies.  Last I heard Miller was pretty right wing.  Some right wing conspiracy there... oh yeah.

[edit, there, that ain't a real word NOW]

[schild]

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

wtf? Frivolity is a word.

[Alluvian]

Damnit!  I must now edit my post.

[Dren]

I don't think it was an issue of how hot the water was to make the coffee but how hot they kept the coffee after it was made.  The burners that the pots sit on were kept way too high (to near boiling.)  If you time it just right you can get one of those scorching hot cups.  You just have to get there when half a pot of coffee has been sitting there for 15 minutes.

That is the biggest reason I never get their coffee.  It always tastes like it has been sitting forever boiling on the burner.

I remember reading someplace that those previous cases asked them why they kept the coffee so hot.  The never gave a good answer, but they kept doing it anyway.  Not even a million dollar lawsuit has changed their minds.  Strange, that is.

[Alluvian]

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.

[Dren]

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.

Makes sense I suppose.  From the numbers, it looks like they are able to justify the lawsuits that come up once in awhile.  Plus they put "Hot" on their cups, so I guess everything is ok now.

[Roac]

I knew, but we had a lawyer come through our school at the time and mentioned the case as a side topic.  Good lesson here is to pay attention to the details of a story, and not accept it at face value.  First off, a jury awarded the woman this money - there is a reason a group of mostly normal people decided to do this.  Sometimes it comes down to "we were tired of arguing about it", but a jury almost always takes their responsibility to heart.  

On punitive damages; this is not money that the defendant has somehow "earned" based on the merits of the case.  Punitive damages are awarded to punish the company for wrongdoing.  This case is a prime example; the 2.7 figure wasn't made up, it was a couple days of coffe sales.  The message it sent to McDonald's should have been clear - fix your coffe mistake.  Now.  We see you, and REALLY want you to knock it off.

If anyone's not convinced, regarding the burns; third degree is really fucking serious.  As in, possibly life threatening serious.  You've burned past your skin, into the fat layer, and permanently damaged nerve endings.  You are most likely permanently disfigured as a result.

[SirBruce]

Anyway, I think even though when people think of excessive lawsuits they incorrect think of a misperception about the McD's case, that doesn't mean the concern about lawsuits that are similar in character is not a legit issue.

I like what some states are doing, and that is keeping large punitive damages but taking the money for the states, not giving it to the victim.  This makes sense; the victim is already compensated.  The punitive damage punishes the company.  It doesn't encourage victims to sue hoping for a gajillion dollars above what they should be compensated for and it prevents lawyers from pursuing such judgements so they can get their percentage of a gajillion dollars.  And the states can then use that money for the public good.  Everyone wins.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

I'm for Tort Reform, and have been for awhile.

However, I have to ask... are the media outlets you are reading as completely fucking retarded as you are? Because if you don't read that article carefully, it not only won't help Edwards, you could actually get the idea that he was one of the lawyers ON the McDonald's case.

I don't care if Edwards was part of the media circus that was the tobacco case, was the attorney that got OJ off, or what, I still wouldn't vote for Bush over him.

[Dark Vengeance]

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.

An 81 year old woman spills coffee and burns the living shit out of her crotch. It's not as if she was really using it for anything worthwhile at that age.

Before anyone goes apoplectic, I understand the case, that the coffee was ridiculously hot, and she did have grounds for a lawsuit. That's fine.

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. Coffee is NEVER sold for the purpose of spilling it in your lap, and I know from experience that it's possible to burn the shit out of your crotch by spilling homemade coffee in your lap. Suing McDonalds because you spilled coffee in your lap is like suing Sears because you whacked your thumb with a Craftsman hammer.

It opened the door for lots of frivolous lawsuits where someone made a mistake, or did something stupid, and then played the victim and field suit. It's being done to attack industries that people don't like...such as tobacco, alcohol, and firearms, and it's also being done so ambulance chasers can make a living, and Joe and Jane Sixpack can try to put themselves on easy street.

Yeah, they kept the coffee REALLY hot, and she suffered some pretty serious burns. That is the reality of the case. But more important is the way the case was perceived by the general public...because that's what opened the door for warning labels on everything, like hair dryers that need to say "do not use in shower".

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[schild]

I just watched Supersize Me. And let me just say this:

I know McDonald's Food made you fat, this is just recorded proof of it.

Only dumb trash eats it and doesn't think that.

Only dumb trash would sue for making themselves have asses the size of a longhorn bull.

Other than that it was a pretty funny movie, unfortunately it didn't make fun of enough dumb fat people.

[Roac]

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.

And I agree with SirBuce - I'd prefer to see punitives go to the states.  Not to keep them out of victim hands so much as to keep them out of the lawyer's hands.  One of the reasons that lawsuits get filed for lame shit is because lawyers are hoping for a big punitive damage payout or settlement, because if the victim wins buckets of moolah, the lawyer gets 40% of the take (assuming they didn't take a flat fee).  If the punitives get taken from the lawyers hands, they're less likely to take these sorts of cases unless paid a flat fee, which puts burden on the plantiff who is now less likely to sue over stupid shit.

And if they do and win, the state benefits.

[kaid]

coffee spilled on your lap that is kept at a normal coffee brewing temp will burn you and hurt but it will NOT cause 3rd degree burns. Mcdonalds was specifically keeping their coffee at a VERY high temp to keep it warm until you get to work.

Kaid

[Dark Vengeance]

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.

Way to pull a line out of context and miss the entire fucking point.

It's not that she wasn't ACTUALLY hurt, or that her injuries weren't more severe than one could reasonably expect. I believe I even mentioned that I agreed she had grounds for her suit. 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.

The way the case was PERCEIVED by the teeming masses isn't quite the same as how it actually went down. Joe Sixpack didn't walk away with a cautionary tale about the temperature of McDonalds coffee, he walked away chuckling at the words "Caution: Hot" on his cup of McDonalds coffee, and thinking to himself "I wonder if I can sue anyone for this" the moment something happens to him, even if it was the result of his own stupidity.

The end result wasn't a lesson to McDonalds to turn down the temperature on their fucking java, it was a lesson to Joe Mouthbreather than he can play the victim card, and lay the blame at the doorstep of large corporations anytime something unfortunate happens to him.

It's this sort of thinking that gets some fucktard suing Ford manufacturer because they were hit by a drunk driver in a Mercury Mystique. Or suing Glidden because their kid died from huffing paint to get high.

It's not the case itself that pisses me off, it is the precedent that in set in the eyes of Joe Sixpack that they can point the finger at someone else when they screw up and laugh their way to the bank.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Dren]

I understand you are just saying that the headlines for this case cased many to look at it as precidence to bring about frivolous cases, but look at the alternative.  They can't judge the case based on what the press and general public will perceive.  The judge can't say, "Yes, it looks like McDonald's is at fault for this, but it would really start the general public thinking they can sue on really stupid stuff.  Case dismissed!"

What alternative are you asking for here?  The difference in this case and the made up ones you stated above are that McDonald's was told it was too hot before.  They were hotter than the competition by quite a bit.  Plus, they have a solution to the issue.  Turn down the temperature.  Those other examples did not have all of those going for them.

Hammers are hammers.  Nobody has had an issue, nor are they any different from manufacture to manufacture.  There isn't any real solution to people hitting their thumbs.

Each of your examples could go through the same scrutiny and not really pass.  Will people sue in those cases.  Probably.  Will they sometimes win?  Probably.  Every manufactured item has a certain amount of liability in them no matter how the general public use them (improperly or not.)

I agree with the above that punitives should go to the state and lawyers should only get a flat fee.  Those are changes that could actually do some good on this topic.

[Roac]

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

...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?

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.

And 90% of the time that it even is discussed, you wind up with people who are utterly clueless as to what analogies are, an elementary understanding of what a logical fallacy is (let alone even a dozen examples of them), or other real trivial crap that prevents the vast, vast majority of people from ever even getting close to groking something.

If you think this aspect about society pisses you off, wait until you work the reasoning ahead a bit to the point where you are talking about the reasons why so many people are this way, some of the things that might fix those reasons, and why that same populous will likely never (or for a very, very long while) accept the medicine.

[Dark Vengeance]

What alternative are you asking for here?

I was unaware that we needed to have a full alternative suggestion in order to be pissed off about something. As a result, I'm going to sue schild for not warning me about this in advance.

What it boils down to is that people can understand this case, and still be angry about the negative impact it has had in turning our society into a massive clusterfuck of litigious morons. We are quickly becoming a culture without character...a culture of victims....one of excuses, and shifting the blame to others.

That makes me mad. My alternative at this point is to wipe out humanity, and hope that chimps don't make the same damn fool mistakes we have.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[schild]

I have to wonder though, and it's gotten me thinking lately. Without the internet, I'm pretty confident most of this stuff would never have reached the masses. I mean, unless Michael Moore made a movie about coffee being too fucking hot for his fat ass, I'm pretty sure corporations could and did handle all this shit before the victim [sic] even got a lawyer.

[Dark Vengeance]

...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?

Did you just START reading my posts? "People are stupid" is a bit of a theme. It used to be "People HERE are stupid", but I toned it down a bit...now I reserve that particular flavor for Bruce, Hyu, and geldon.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Roac]

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

Well, the story itself got to the masses without the help of the internet.  The full story is really only available on the net, because no news network is going to devote a few hours to discussing the ins and outs of it (they will devote hours of airtime, but it's mostly recycled soundbytes and gloss overs).  Problem is that it hasn't exactly reached the masses - even with internet access, most people don't care enough to research the story and read up on it.  It's available, but if it's unused it's sort of beside the point.  A new saying I guess - if a story is available on the internet, but no one is around to read it, does it count towards content?

[Margalis]

Ten years ago, if you went to MacDonald's (or Wendy's I might add) the coffee was served at a temperature where it would severely burn you if you tried to drink it without waiting for ten minutes. I don't mean "ooh that hurts" I mean "HOLY FUCK (drops cup)"

I knew this case was legit. It's funny that the poster child case for lame lawsuits is actually a valid case.
---

The thing that REALLY annoys me about this case and people's reactions to it is that people just do NOT get what punitive damages are all about. The woman did not "deserve" the money she got, but that isn't the point of punitive damages. The point is to hit the company in the bottom line so they change their behavior. The sad fact is, if companies only had to pay out what defendents "deserved" it would be worth the money to simply keep paying out and keep doing what they know is wrong.

[Abagadro]

Punis create what are called "private attorney general" in that they provide incentive for attorneys to go after problems to get them fixed when the government won't do it.  The Pinto case is the classic one. Ford would have never changed the design without getting hit with a 200M puni award.  They actually calculated out the compensatory damages of the people they knew the design would kill and decided it was cheaper to do that than change the design.  I don't know about you, but that's not how I want things to work.

Forfeiting punis to the state removes the incentive to take a case on contingency.  Most plaintiff's can't afford to up-front the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees these cases against big companies could cost. Whether you believe it or not, punitive damages are very hard to come by and are granted only in extreme cases of intentional or reckless conduct.  They are often reduced big time too, especially after the recent Campbell v. State Farm case that SCOTUS just decided re: reasonable relation to compensatory damages.  Even if the lawyer was removed from the equation, I think the injured party should get the benefit of the punitive damages (a la crime victim compensation).

Most of the crap that comes out about these cases comes from the insurance companies who aren't exactly pure on the issue.

[Roac]

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

I'd argue removing some incentive wouldn't be a bad thing.  It isn't the Pinto lawsuits that are a problem (as far as lawsuits go) - it's the ones that don't make it.  While I don't believe for a moment that insurance companies are angels, they are right in that lawsuits that don't have merit cost everyone.  At least for the medical industry (less sure about others), the number of frivolous lawsuits is extremely harmful.  Problem here is that it's often cheaper to settle than to go to court, even if the doctors know they are likely to win - and assuming the suit doesn't go against the doc's medical record (they defend that like their firstborn).

[Abagadro]

You are making an assumption that there are these legion of frivolous lawsuits costing everyone a bunch of money.  That is propaganda perpetrated by the insurance company. I can tell you first hand as an attorney, that there just aren't that many frivolous lawsuits. It's far too big a pain in the ass to bring a totally bogus suit. It cost you money as an attorney to do it. Not only are you fronting costs, but you are not working on what could be a good case.  Are there bogus cases filed? Sure. Is there some epidemic of them? No. Taking on an insurance company for shits and giggles just doesn't happen. You know they will drag it out and make you pay.

There is also this little thing called the justice system which is specifically designed to separate bogus cases for good ones. 99.9% of the time, it works just fine.

[Roac]

That is propaganda perpetrated by the insurance company.

I don't know anyone in the insurance business.  I do have three family members (aunt, uncle, sister in-law), a friend, and an ex college professor I know who are in the medical industry.  None of them have any love for insurance companies (the sis is partly exempt here, only one of the group not a doctor) and often complain bitterly about them, especially HMOs.  Of course, there's a difference between a patient's medical insurance, and malpractice insurance that doctors are required to carry, but none of them are looking to downsize.  

And yes, doctors do get sued.  A lot.  And they often settle, and it gets paid out by the insurance companies, which raise premiums, which gets passed back to the consumer.  It isn't just rhetoric; my insurance is five times what it was four years ago, and my deductable has almost doubled (250->450).  Insurance companies in turn push back down to the doctors things to try and prevent lawsuits, in order to try and prevent the insurance companies from having to pay out (increases costs overall, but aimed to save their own ass).  

Oh, and before you call me on it (I glossed over it earlier), I do recognize there are differences between punitive damages, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other sorts of money awarded to plantiffs.  I have similar feelings about them all.