During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.
but yet people will still dismiss it as a stupid lawsuit by some greedy woman. gotta protect those big corps
Thanks to the successful smear campaign executed by the corporate lawyers.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck
This smear campaign is clear and obvious defamation. Someone should get in trouble for this, but unfortunately no one will.
I wonder how much Jerry Seinfeld got.
Both can be true.
They could be, but they aren’t. The woman literally had her labia fused together from the burn and just wanted them to pay for her fucking surgery.
She didn’t seek out that much money. She only wanted money to cover her medical costs. If you feel upset about the amount then you should blame the jury. They’re the ones who came up with the amount. (Which the judge lowered.)
It’s not about the money. Its about her being as dumb and as irresponsible as mcds.
Except she fucking wasn’t, you twat. Stop victim blaming.
Fuck you shithead. There are no victims in civil suits.
The woman who received serious burns from McDonald’s overheated coffee was a victim, sparky.
There can absolutely be victims in civil suits. A company isn’t a person so it’s not like they can go out and mug someone, often the only way to get justice against a company is in civil court.
Well actually there are some formats of a company that will be seen as a person from the perspective of the law
I’m very familiar with this case because of Randy Cassingham’s True Stella Awards (sadly discontinued). Here’s a few facts -
Those facts are not in dispute, but, instead of quietly paying her medical bills (which is all she wanted) and moving on, McDonald’s PR decided to publicly smear her and paint her as “DuH, sHe OrDeReD hOt CoFfEe ThEn BuRnEd HeRsElF. DuRr HuRr….”
She absolutely was the victim, but McDonald’s turned her pain into a punchline. All the way to the point that most average people today still believe that it was a frivolous lawsuit, when she deserved what she got and more because of her severe pain.
Also, if there were no victims in civil suits, there would be no civil suits. That’s the entire point, one party has been aggrieved, and they want compensation from the other party.
So she could have gotten out and she spilled it on herself.
Still her own fault.
Yes, if you read the trial results, you will see that the jury did find her 20% at fault, but found McDonald’s 80% at fault. It doesn’t matter where she was, the point is that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and wasn’t even consumable. If I buy cup of coffee, I expect it to be drinkable, this was not. Further, McDonald’s KNEW that their coffee was too hot, had received numerous complaints, yet did nothing. That’s what puts them 80% in the wrong - when they’re aware of a dangerous problem and they do nothing to fix it or mitigate the issue. They are negligent. Period, hard stop.
Others have already very kindly explained how you’re completely, totally wrong, so I’ll just add:
Neener neener, you’re a stupid asshat and nobody likes you :D
Removed by mod
Right. Her getting third degree burns means she wasn’t a victim.
How was she dumb? How was she irresponsible?
Gee I spilled hot coffee in my lap…let me just do nothing and sit in it.
Ur labia don’t get fused cuz coffee gets splashed on them.
I take it you’ve never seen or experienced burns from boiling water – second degree burns happen nearly instantly, with third degree burns taking seconds.
The coffee they served her was near boiling.
They do if the coffee is as hot as McDonald’s had it.
The temperature it was at can cause third degree burns in three seconds. Please tell me how an elderly woman buckled in a car can get all of the scalding coffee off of herself in under three seconds.
Did you know that liquid at 150F can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds? This was 200F, 133% hotter than liquid that can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds. The woman, who it would behoove you to recall was elderly, was sitting down, buckled in, wearing jeans.
Please, explain to me how, in this scenario, you would suggest that an elderly woman remove her now-scalding jeans in 2 seconds or less.
You can’t, because it’s impossible. Now fuck off, you complete piece of human garbage. Go suck corporate dick on reddit.
I drink my coffee above 150 wtf r u smoking???
I’m smoking science and facts. Sorry you’re too stupid to understand them. One source: https://dcs.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/Child-Abuse-Tips-Scald-Injuries.pdf
Another source, citing 3 seconds at 140F: https://antiscald.com/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=15
Another source, a graph showing time to burn at liquid temperatures ranging from 130F to boiling: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_lrg.gif
Edit, hey! Just for fun, here’s one specifically talking about the optimal drinking temperature for hot beverages. It only briefly mentions that the usual serving temp of coffee (~180F) can easily and quickly cause significant scalding, but it goes on to show that the optimal - in terms of customer satisfaction, taste, and safety - is a cool ~140F. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305417907002550?via%3Dihub
They do if the coffee is just that damn hot which it was.
NSFL: https://www.google.com/search?q=stella+liebeck+burns&sca_esv=566856875&tbm=isch&sxsrf=AM9HkKmPBVZwzxW-bL6SS-UapPZ4BYy9aQ:1695197259357&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjigd_z3biBAxXQO3AKHd7ZAT8Q_AUIBigB&biw=360&bih=653
Yep cuz she spilled it on herself trying to put cream in and then she sat in it for like a minute. No way some coffee just poured on ur arm is hot enough to instantly fuse flesh .
Mcd should have paid the initial settlement I agree but the vast damage from this lady’s experience was a result of her own actions.
That’s what people can’t get over.
I get how a jury could get it wrong and pay her for her suffering. And I pity her this experience What I dont get is why people completely absolve her of any responsibility here when her own actions were the first contributing factors.
Even if the coffee wasn’t “too hot”. Her own actions still would have left her burned. That is a fact.
Burn damage occurs in less than a second. Go dip your hand in a pot of boiling water as fast as you can if you want to try it, I’m sure you’ll be just fine.
The jury also heard evidence how there had been multiple serious injuries before this lady and yet McD intentionally refused to lower the temperature as the bean counters realized they saved money keeping it hot… people couldn’t drink very much of it in restaurant as they ate their breakfast and therfore didn’t ask for refills. Even though they had paid out claims previously, it was cheaper to keep it hot and keep paying them out despite injuries. The jury thus decided on significant punitive damages to motivate McD to do the right thing.
Burn damage happens near-instantly. Holy shit this is what happens when education isn’t done properly.
People, or “people”?
Redirecting the narrative away from your faults helps protect your profits.
both. the corporation for starting a smear campaign and the public for buying into it and not doing their own research