Have we become this...

[justanotherwaygook]

I agree that the McDonalds coffee case sounds frivolous at first, but when you read the details it's easy to understand why she got so much money.

P.S. Coffee is hot. McDonalds coffee was scalding, capable of destruction of this woman's skin instantly. No other chain restaurant served coffee this hot at the time. It's common sense to think that coffee is hot, but it's unreasonable for a customer to foresee their skin being melted off because the coffee is 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Why would a restaurant serve any food or beverage capable of melting someone's skin to go?

It didn't melt her skin.  It melted her pants.

Coffee is normally served at 82-88C (180-190F).  Liquid water (and I'm pretty sure coffee) can not be hotter than about 100C (212F).  I've never seen someone's skin melt with boiling water.

[Sara]

It didn't melt her skin.  It melted her pants.

Coffee is normally served at 82-88C (180-190F).  Liquid water (and I'm pretty sure coffee) can not be hotter than about 100C (212F).  I've never seen someone's skin melt with boiling water.

It melted her skin. Why would she need skin grafts if it melted her pants?

That's what the whole case was over...she needed to cover her medical costs. She was in the hospital for a week because of her 3rd degree burns.

[flasyb]

The Jury ruled that McDonalds was 80% at fault and Leibeck 20%. She made an error but should this happen (see below)?

"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.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed."       

Of course it shouldn't happen. But it did.  Sh*t happens--that's life
People/corporations shouldnt be made to cough up cash everytime somebody does something dumb.
There shouldnt always be somebody you can blame and make to pay.

And this lady was also like 80 years old. It's not surprising that her injuries and recovery period were as severe as they were.

Not sure why people are defending big corporations -- that's gotta be the biggest joke in corporate circles -- lower middle class people defending corporations, lmao!

So what if there's some lack of common sense? Big corporation "takes a hit" that's really not a hit at all -- it won't even hurt their feelings, much less their pocket book.

I can understand someone getting bent out of shape when your "avg Joe" (or 'your neighbor') gets sued, but a big corporation/insurance firm? Comeon people, please...to them you are just a stupid peasant and that's all you'll be for the rest of your life. These corporations are making millions unjustly, focus on that, the bigger picture.

Defending corporations?
If anything, I am defending common sense. MY definition of what common sense is.

Call me crazy, but I'm a fan of fairness.  I don't want to see corporations screwing the populace, (subprime mortgages, etc) but I don't want to see them get scammed by lowlifes and idiots either.  Both are wrong and they hurt the system.

There is a problem with the way business is conducted...no argument there...but that is a separate issue.
Frivolous lawsuits will only make things worse.

Common sense tells me that MacDonald's shouldn't be handing out coffee that hot at a drive through. Where did they think she was going to drink it? Common sense tells me that MacDonald's showed a disregard for the safety of its customers by selling coffee that was too hot, especially for a drive through. Using common sense, I'm able to say that coffee which leaves you with 3rd degree burns when spilled, is too hot to be handing out at a drive through. Common sense tells me that there was nothing frivolous about this lawsuit. Liebeck just asked for enough to cover her medical expenses ($20,000 - MacDonald's offered her $800 which is a slap in the face), she never sued for millions, it was a judge who determined that she should be awarded 2 days worth of MacDonald's coffee sales as "justice."

The problem with these cases is that people never see the whole story as they are frequently silenced by out of court settlements. The story gets into a tabloid or two and then everyone is talking about how common sense has gone out of the window. "wah wah wah  :'( poor MacDonald's, sued for millions by an old witch just out for the cash." When it comes down to it, the facts are usually very different. But stick to your "common sense" and your single side of the story. If you have an accident and somebody else is at fault, leaving you unable to work and hospitalised, we'll see how frivolous your lawsuit is.

It's clear that you haven't read the full facts on the hot coffee case. Either do so or continue to sound foolish.

I believe the common sense here, and let me make this as simple as possible for you, is the following:
Coffee is hot. Hot things hurt you. I should be careful around hot things.
Furthermore:
I know coffee is hot. I will not put it in a position to hurt me.

I hope this clears things up for those of you who like to bend words.

There's no bending of words. Let me make this as simple as possible for you:
Coffee is hot. Hot things hurt you. You shouldn't hand cups of coffee to people hot enough to burn them to the extent that they require skin grafts, especially when they are driving.
Furthermore, MacDonald's has a duty not to endager the safety of its customers. They share responsibility in this.

[justanotherwaygook]

It didn't melt her skin.  It melted her pants.

Coffee is normally served at 82-88C (180-190F).  Liquid water (and I'm pretty sure coffee) can not be hotter than about 100C (212F).  I've never seen someone's skin melt with boiling water.

It melted her skin. Why would she need skin grafts if it melted her pants?

That's what the whole case was over...she needed to cover her medical costs. She was in the hospital for a week because of her 3rd degree burns.

Link please.

Her skin turned to liquid (melting)?  She suffered severe burns.  3rd degree burns refers to total damage of the skin.  It's irreversible.  That's why she needed grafts.  But it didn't 'melt' her skin. 
I retract my statement about melting her pants.  She was wearing cotton pants.  Also, coffee is BREWED at the temperatures I stated, but can be served at a lower temperature.

[Sara]

http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/20013-Personal-Injury-Attorneys-Explain-The-Hot-Coffee-Case.html

Sorry, I'm not a doctor. I thought third degree burns meant that the skin was partially liquefied. My mistake.

Still, the coffee was unreasonably hot and the woman was left irreversibly disfigured.

[iseya]

  Common sense tells me that MacDonald's shouldn't be handing out coffee that hot at a drive through. Where did they think she was going to drink it? Common sense tells me that MacDonald's showed a disregard for the safety of its customers by selling coffee that was too hot, especially for a drive through. Using common sense, I'm able to say that coffee which leaves you with 3rd degree burns when spilled, is too hot to be handing out at a drive through. Common sense tells me that there was nothing frivolous about this lawsuit. Liebeck just asked for enough to cover her medical expenses ($20,000 - MacDonald's offered her $800 which is a slap in the face), she never sued for millions, it was a judge who determined that she should be awarded 2 days worth of MacDonald's coffee sales as "justice."

The problem with these cases is that people never see the whole story as they are frequently silenced by out of court settlements. The story gets into a tabloid or two and then everyone is talking about how common sense has gone out of the window. "wah wah wah   poor MacDonald's, sued for millions by an old witch just out for the cash." When it comes down to it, the facts are usually very different. But stick to your "common sense" and your single side of the story. If you have an accident and somebody else is at fault, leaving you unable to work and hospitalised, we'll see how frivolous your lawsuit is.

It's clear that you haven't read the full facts on the hot coffee case. Either do so or continue to sound foolish.
 

I'm actually quite familiar with the case.
The problem isn't my "ignorance", the problem is your assumption that I should see it the way that you do.

I can see why people such as yourself feel the way that you do---that doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.

But hey, you and Jrong continue the good fight against corporations.
Im not Mitt Romney so you guys might want to redirect your outrage

[madison79]

http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/blogs/archives/20013-Personal-Injury-Attorneys-Explain-The-Hot-Coffee-Case.html

Sorry, I'm not a doctor. I thought third degree burns meant that the skin was partially liquefied. My mistake.

Still, the coffee was unreasonably hot and the woman was left irreversibly disfigured.

If the coffee was overheated to the point where she got 3rd degree burns then MCD's was at fault. 

90% of these labels are precautions against morons doing stupid things but a few a probably reactive to somebody doing something stupid. 

[MIGHTYMERICAN]

The Jury ruled that McDonalds was 80% at fault and Leibeck 20%. She made an error but should this happen (see below)?

"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.[13] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds (38 kg).[14] Two years of medical treatment followed."       

Of course it shouldn't happen. But it did.  Sh*t happens--that's life
People/corporations shouldnt be made to cough up cash everytime somebody does something dumb.
There shouldnt always be somebody you can blame and make to pay.

And this lady was also like 80 years old. It's not surprising that her injuries and recovery period were as severe as they were.

Not sure why people are defending big corporations -- that's gotta be the biggest joke in corporate circles -- lower middle class people defending corporations, lmao!

So what if there's some lack of common sense? Big corporation "takes a hit" that's really not a hit at all -- it won't even hurt their feelings, much less their pocket book.

I can understand someone getting bent out of shape when your "avg Joe" (or 'your neighbor') gets sued, but a big corporation/insurance firm? Comeon people, please...to them you are just a stupid peasant and that's all you'll be for the rest of your life. These corporations are making millions unjustly, focus on that, the bigger picture.

Defending corporations?
If anything, I am defending common sense. MY definition of what common sense is.

Call me crazy, but I'm a fan of fairness.  I don't want to see corporations screwing the populace, (subprime mortgages, etc) but I don't want to see them get scammed by lowlifes and idiots either.  Both are wrong and they hurt the system.

There is a problem with the way business is conducted...no argument there...but that is a separate issue.
Frivolous lawsuits will only make things worse.

Common sense tells me that MacDonald's shouldn't be handing out coffee that hot at a drive through. Where did they think she was going to drink it? Common sense tells me that MacDonald's showed a disregard for the safety of its customers by selling coffee that was too hot, especially for a drive through. Using common sense, I'm able to say that coffee which leaves you with 3rd degree burns when spilled, is too hot to be handing out at a drive through. Common sense tells me that there was nothing frivolous about this lawsuit. Liebeck just asked for enough to cover her medical expenses ($20,000 - MacDonald's offered her $800 which is a slap in the face), she never sued for millions, it was a judge who determined that she should be awarded 2 days worth of MacDonald's coffee sales as "justice."

The problem with these cases is that people never see the whole story as they are frequently silenced by out of court settlements. The story gets into a tabloid or two and then everyone is talking about how common sense has gone out of the window. "wah wah wah  :'( poor MacDonald's, sued for millions by an old witch just out for the cash." When it comes down to it, the facts are usually very different. But stick to your "common sense" and your single side of the story. If you have an accident and somebody else is at fault, leaving you unable to work and hospitalised, we'll see how frivolous your lawsuit is.

It's clear that you haven't read the full facts on the hot coffee case. Either do so or continue to sound foolish.

I believe the common sense here, and let me make this as simple as possible for you, is the following:
Coffee is hot. Hot things hurt you. I should be careful around hot things.
Furthermore:
I know coffee is hot. I will not put it in a position to hurt me.

I hope this clears things up for those of you who like to bend words.

There's no bending of words. Let me make this as simple as possible for you:
Coffee is hot. Hot things hurt you. You shouldn't hand cups of coffee to people hot enough to burn them to the extent that they require skin grafts, especially when they are driving.
Furthermore, MacDonald's has a duty not to endager the safety of its customers. They share responsibility in this.

Just difference of opinion I suppose. Either way nothing important enough for me to argue about any more.

[flasyb]

  Common sense tells me that MacDonald's shouldn't be handing out coffee that hot at a drive through. Where did they think she was going to drink it? Common sense tells me that MacDonald's showed a disregard for the safety of its customers by selling coffee that was too hot, especially for a drive through. Using common sense, I'm able to say that coffee which leaves you with 3rd degree burns when spilled, is too hot to be handing out at a drive through. Common sense tells me that there was nothing frivolous about this lawsuit. Liebeck just asked for enough to cover her medical expenses ($20,000 - MacDonald's offered her $800 which is a slap in the face), she never sued for millions, it was a judge who determined that she should be awarded 2 days worth of MacDonald's coffee sales as "justice."

The problem with these cases is that people never see the whole story as they are frequently silenced by out of court settlements. The story gets into a tabloid or two and then everyone is talking about how common sense has gone out of the window. "wah wah wah   poor MacDonald's, sued for millions by an old witch just out for the cash." When it comes down to it, the facts are usually very different. But stick to your "common sense" and your single side of the story. If you have an accident and somebody else is at fault, leaving you unable to work and hospitalised, we'll see how frivolous your lawsuit is.

It's clear that you haven't read the full facts on the hot coffee case. Either do so or continue to sound foolish.
 

I'm actually quite familiar with the case.
The problem isn't my "ignorance", the problem is your assumption that I should see it the way that you do.

I can see why people such as yourself feel the way that you do---that doesn't mean that I have to agree with it.

But hey, you and Jrong continue the good fight against corporations.
Im not Mitt Romney so you guys might want to redirect your outrage

 
Well, sorry for coming on a little strong. At the end of the day, I'm just sick of these kinds of stories that get batted around, become urban mythified and get completely distorted.

Most people probably still think that the old lady sued MacDonald's for millions. She didn't, she sued for $20,000 to cover the medical costs required after her skin grafts.

The jury decided that Liebeck was 20% responsible (presumably for spilling the coffee) and MacDonald's was 80% responsible (for selling coffee to drivers that was so hot that when spilled someone required a skin graft). That seems fair to me. You can spill a coffee but you shouldn't need a skin graft for it. The judge also thought it would be justice that after having initially offered her a paltry $800 for her injuries - an acknowledgement of guilt but a drop in the ocean compared to the medical costs - corporate giant, MacDonald's, should give her two days worth of coffee sales. The amount was reduced on appeal. If it wasn't for this case, MacDonald's could still be handing out excessively hot coffee to drivers and endangering them too. So the notion that this lawsuit was "frivolous" seems to me to be a foolish one.

Ultimately, what happened in this case and what happens every time a case like this comes up is that people make a judgement of their own without bothering to furnish themselves with the full facts. They become funny stories or stories that indicate the decline of our "lawsuit societies." Many of the "absurd" cases quoted by the second poster are probably the same thing. It goes like this: Police reporter working for tabloid sees interesting case in court. Thinks they have an angle. It's the absurd lawsuit angle. Reporter quotes things from the case that support their angle. Tabloid publishes heavily biased story. Other tabloids nationally and then internationally report on the "ridiculous" story (and these days it goes viral after that).

After settlements, particularly out of court, the person receiving the settlements is placed under a gagging order. The person or company (or both since companies are morphing into human beings now) has no such restriction on their/its speech in place. They say what they want about the case. They go on news shows and the myth perpetuates.

I didn't mean to be rude to you but this is something that really gets my goat (clearly  :D). A biased tabloid story gets compiled into a list by an internet site (see second post on thread) and everyone can chuckle wryly about how society is going to the dogs. The reality is, it's lawsuits like these that keep corporations in check and force them to take care of the safety of their customers and not just the take care of their money. Getting to the bottom of what actually happens in the stories like the ones published above - which I call bare-faced lies - becomes almost impossible.

[rogue85]

Take responsibility for your own stupidity! Also, the fact that people feel like they need to live in bubbles in case they get germs or, god-forbid, they scrape a knee, is making us a really sad excuse for mammals. Weak and silly.

[Frozencat99]

While I agree that McDonald's was at more fault than Liebeck, there's one huge common sense mistake that gets overlooked - she wouldn't have put the cup their in the first place or spilled it if she ordered the coffee with cream/milk and sugar in it.

[tails]

God bless America!  :o

[madison79]

God bless America!  :o

It's not just Americans who do these things. 

[bobrocket]

But when you have a system that allows people to sue for a lack common sense, well stupid people need stupid warnings.

http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/

It looks like we should put warnings on links before "bobrocket" posts them in forums:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Wish granted

INTERNET IS FULL OF C**P, SNIFF, DON'T SWALLOW.

I'm sure a lot of stories are twisted by media to make better reading, The Korean Times seems like a good local example.

A real example then, an old boss got taken to court, a guy got hurt on a construction site and it cost the company because he slipped on some water and appropriate measures weren't taken to isolate the hazard.
The water came from a hole in the roof that existed before construction begin, the water was inside a locked room that the guy broke into, he also had to remove a barrier and the sign that specified the hazard.
He also had to break into the building in which this room was located, more warning signs were removed to get into the building.
He also had to climb over a barbed wire fence to begin his mission.
How did the water get there, it rained, why wasn't the roof fixed, it was the first day and it was deemed unsafe because of existing power cables.
Why was the guy there? to steal copper for scrap, his excuse.
The appropriate measure that wasn't taken, someone should of cleaned the water up.

Another example is a camp for US kids in Australia, in the contract it specified that staff cannot administer first aid because of potential liability.
Their reasoning was that if a kid stopped breathing and you broke a rib through CPR, regardless of the fact you may of saved their life, the parents can still sue. They gave more reasons but that was the dumbest. Another was if someone was bleeding and you stopped the bleeding, if the wound got infected then that could be your fault.
Part of their criteria for employment was a first aid qualification due to the nearest doctor being about a two hour drive.

It's not a dig at the US but being open to frivolous lawsuits seems to have stream lined the process.
In the end it's the consumer that pays, sure, McD's may of been wrong but I'm sure they'll just add a few cents to a burger to cover this cost.

[justanotherwaygook]

But when you have a system that allows people to sue for a lack common sense, well stupid people need stupid warnings.

http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/

It looks like we should put warnings on links before "bobrocket" posts them in forums:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Wish granted

INTERNET IS FULL OF C**P, SNIFF, DON'T SWALLOW.

I'm sure a lot of stories are twisted by media to make better reading, The Korean Times seems like a good local example.

A real example then, an old boss got taken to court, a guy got hurt on a construction site and it cost the company because he slipped on some water and appropriate measures weren't taken to isolate the hazard.
The water came from a hole in the roof that existed before construction begin, the water was inside a locked room that the guy broke into, he also had to remove a barrier and the sign that specified the hazard.
He also had to break into the building in which this room was located, more warning signs were removed to get into the building.
He also had to climb over a barbed wire fence to begin his mission.
How did the water get there, it rained, why wasn't the roof fixed, it was the first day and it was deemed unsafe because of existing power cables.
Why was the guy there? to steal copper for scrap, his excuse.
The appropriate measure that wasn't taken, someone should of cleaned the water up.

Another example is a camp for US kids in Australia, in the contract it specified that staff cannot administer first aid because of potential liability.
Their reasoning was that if a kid stopped breathing and you broke a rib through CPR, regardless of the fact you may of saved their life, the parents can still sue. They gave more reasons but that was the dumbest. Another was if someone was bleeding and you stopped the bleeding, if the wound got infected then that could be your fault.
Part of their criteria for employment was a first aid qualification due to the nearest doctor being about a two hour drive.

It's not a dig at the US but being open to frivolous lawsuits seems to have stream lined the process.
In the end it's the consumer that pays, sure, McD's may of been wrong but I'm sure they'll just add a few cents to a burger to cover this cost.

Links please, BR.

[Frozencat99]

Though 18-19^th Century UK was much worse, the litigiousness of Americans is certainly something that stands out more so than any other Western group, in my opinion.

That isn't to say others don't do it, just that they're not as known for doing so.

[bobrocket]

 Links please, BR.

Sorry no links, just things through employment.

[Yahowho]

At first, I laughed. But I have basically done the same thing. I got into a car once carrying 3 coffees and a sandwich. My phone rang so I tried to balance the coffees on top of one another. The driver took off and the coffee spilled all over my groin. And yes, it did burn skin off a part of me that required attention, and deserved embarrassment (insert joke here). I didn't sue or feel entitled to anything because I realised that what I did was incredibly stupid.

I got my coffee from a tiny, family-run coffee shop. I fail to see how McDonalds, as a big corporation, should be more at fault just because they are a big corporation. I also fail to see why defending them in this instance is wrong. The lady purchased coffee and acted in an irresponsible manner with it. Was she driving when this happened? If so then it is doubly irresponsible and could have caused an accident.

In terms of what led up to the incident, I can't find McDonalds at fault. The fact that the coffee was so hot is what they are responsible for. They should absolutely cover the medical bills. Anyone who has ever had a McDonalds coffee will know how ridiculously hot it is. The fact that it caused such severe burns isn't acceptable.

Moral of the story;

Ronald, if you're reading this, sort out your crappy, over heated coffee.
Old lady, use a bit more, or any, common sense.

[makeshiftb0y]

Relax, people.

Here's a similar but better story:

[Jrong]

It's a matter of opinion. Imo, big corporations make big profits by selling sh@# food to poor people. Some don't have any problem with that. Some, like me, do. Small family businesses are what they are -- no one running them is getting wealthy by selling sh@# to poor people.

What's funny is that it's lower-middle class or middle class folks that love to stick up for corporations (especially lower-middle class). Why should you? They don't have your back. They don't give a d@mn about you. IMO McDonald's could not be sued enough. There is no such thing as a "frivolous" lawsuit when it's directed at big corps, imo.