MAFCA lawsuit

[sgwilson904]

Originally Posted by Bob C

Remember the woman that bought hot coffee, placed it between her legs while driving and won money because it was hot and burned her?
__________________

This case always strikes a nerve when cited as a good example of why there should be so-called tort reform. I dunno, maybe it's a lifetime of working as an investigative reporter sorting the truth from the spin, maybe it's the experience of working for those "fair and balanced" broadcasters who pressured me to use the public airways to deliberately lie to viewers. Whatever it is, before you, too, swallow the spin on the "McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit" take a look at the actual facts of the case here:

http://www.citizen.org/hot-coffee

And, just for fun, see a lawyer's perspective here:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...susan-saladoff

Just sayin'...you can't always believe what you hear, and sometimes not even what you THINK you see!

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by sgwilson904

This case always strikes a nerve when cited as a good example of why there should be so-called tort reform. I dunno, maybe it's a lifetime of working as an investigative reporter sorting the truth from the spin, maybe it's the experience of working for those "fair and balanced" broadcasters who pressured me to use the public airways to deliberately lie to viewers. Whatever it is, before you, too, swallow the spin on the "McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit" take a look at the actual facts of the case here:

http://www.citizen.org/hot-coffee

And, just for fun, see a lawyer's perspective here:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...susan-saladoff

Just sayin'...you can't always believe what you hear, and sometimes not even what you THINK you see!

Since you brought it back up (mcdonalds) The coffee was always served at that temp. Unless the woman never bought a coffee from them she knew it was hot but yet she did not remove the lid from the coffee away from her body. No she placed it in the most sensitive area of the body and must have used two hands to remove the lid that was designed to stay on and prevent burns. Hot liquids burn and being almost 80 years old she must have known that.

Sorry your links just reinforced my belief that the injury was was her fault, if she ordered orange juice and she was burned doing the same thing then that would be different.

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

Since you brought it back up (mcdonalds) The coffee was always served at that temp. Unless the woman never bought a coffee from them she knew it was hot but yet she did not remove the lid from the coffee away from her body. No she placed it in the most sensitive area of the body and must have used two hands to remove the lid that was designed to stay on and prevent burns. Hot liquids burn and being almost 80 years old she must have known that.

Sorry your links just reinforced my belief that the injury was was her fault, if she ordered orange juice and she was burned doing the same thing then that would be different.

My texas government class did a research report on this mcdonalds case, and I can assure you she deserved every penny. All she wanted was for them to pay the medical treatment for the case, but they wouldn't so she sued them. But since she sued, the jury got to decide her amount, and they are the ones that rewarded her the money. She never wanted the large amount, but ended up benefitting her because she was never able to regain the strength she had before the burns, and had to be put into a nursing home pre-maturely. But it was so hot, that it gave her 3 & 4 degree burns. Even if she'd tried to drink it, it would have scorched her throat. There is no reason for coffee to be that hot. I'm sorry... but get your lower half of your body burned to the bone in hot coffee and I'm sure you'd have a different opinion (I've seen the pictures, it's nothing I would wish on anyone).

Not trying to start an argument, but until you've got and read ALL the facts, don't bash someone. It was a very tragic case and it was very unfortunate how it horribly wounded her. She had to have reconstructive plastic surgery.

[Mike V. Florida]

Originally Posted by Jordan

My texas government class did a research report on this mcdonalds case, and I can assure you she deserved every penny. All she wanted was for them to pay the medical treatment for the case, but they wouldn't so she sued them. But since she sued, the jury got to decide her amount, and they are the ones that rewarded her the money. She never wanted the large amount, but ended up benefitting her because she was never able to regain the strength she had before the burns, and had to be put into a nursing home pre-maturely. But it was so hot, that it gave her 3 & 4 degree burns. Even if she'd tried to drink it, it would have scorched her throat. There is no reason for coffee to be that hot. I'm sorry... but get your lower half of your body burned to the bone in hot coffee and I'm sure you'd have a different opinion (I've seen the pictures, it's nothing I would wish on anyone).

Not trying to start an argument, but until you've got and read ALL the facts, don't bash someone. It was a very tragic case and it was very unfortunate how it horribly wounded her. She had to have reconstructive plastic surgery.

There is no question she was hurt and hurt bad but your comment "I can assure you she deserved every penny." Why? She place a hot coffee cup where it did not belong, she pried the top off the hot coffee when it was between her legs. Would a reasonable person knowing that the coffee was as hot as every other McDonald's place it there and remove the top allowing the coffee to spill? I'm sorry I'm one for personal responsibility. Every thing is not someones else's fault. Was the coffee hotter than on any other day? no. Was the coffee hotter than any other McDonald's? No.

The National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards.

The jury felt sorry for the old lady and felt the big corporation had the money to pay her. Let me ask you this, how many other successful lawsuits have there been against anyone that serves hot beverages?

Similar lawsuits against McDonald's in England failed. In Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd., for the same temperature coffee as used in the above case.

[sgwilson904]

Originally Posted by Mike V. Florida

There is no question she was hurt and hurt bad but your comment "I can assure you she deserved every penny." Why? She place a hot coffee cup where it did not belong, she pried the top off the hot coffee when it was between her legs. Would a reasonable person knowing that the coffee was as hot as every other McDonald's place it there and remove the top allowing the coffee to spill? I'm sorry I'm one for personal responsibility. Every thing is not someones else's fault.

Mike, sounds like your mind is set on this and none of the facts will change it. Please just consider these reasons why the woman may well have deserved every penny and why, sometimes, these "frivolous" suits are not so frivolous at all.

1. For at least 10 years, McDonald's knew its coffee, when served at 180-190 degrees, was causing severe burns. In that period, more than 700 were severely burned from spills, including children and infants. And not all of them brought the trouble on themselves due to what you might think was their own stupidity. Sometimes a McDonalds employee would spill it on a customer. The company did nothing.

2. Sure, personal responsibility is important. The jury found--and the judge agreed--the victim here was 20% responsible for the spill. Never mind the temp, she should have known better, you say. And how many people who need to add sugar and/or cream to the coffee just handed to them at the drive-thru pull safely to the side of the road to get out and add it?

3. But more important, ANY product we buy is, by law, required to be fit for the purpose for which it is sold. With food, that means it must be fit for consumption. Coffee served at 190 degrees is not fit for consumption. Even if you don't spill it, it's a third-degree burn waiting to happen. This is not the opinion of the "old woman's money-grubbing, scumbag lawyer." McDonalds admitted this in court. The company also admitted consumers are not warned and are unaware the temperature of the coffee is SO hot it poses a risk. (What? You don't carry a thermometer to check it before you drink? You expect it to be about the 30-40 degrees cooler, the same temp as it is virtually everywhere else in town where you buy hot coffee? How negligent and irresponsible of YOU!)

4. The "McDonalds coffee woman" was never out looking for a so-called jury jackpot from a bunch of stupid citizens who might take pity on a poor, elderly woman. She and her lawyer would have been happy to settle the case for just $20,000--the amount of her medical bills that were not covered by her insurance. No, McDonalds said, here's $800, take it or leave it. THAT'S what prompted the lawsuit. In fact, the way the company acted and how it dealt with its own issue of personal/corporate responsibility was summed up in a single word: callous. That's what the appellate judge decided, not me.

5. Finally, keep this in mind: burns from liquids this hot is not just a minor inconvenience and a little temporary pain. 190-degree coffee causes the worst kind of a burn (third degree) in three to seven SECONDS. It causes not only disfiguration but years and sometimes a lifetime of pain and suffering and permanent disability. It can only be treated with very expensive skin grafting, special whirlpool treatments, and plastic surgery.

Yes, the woman should not have opened hot coffee in the car. Had it been served at 130 degrees instead of 190 as McDonalds insisted, she would have suffered briefly and learned a lesson that she should have known by her age anyway...BUT she wouldn't have been in the worst kind of unbearable pain, scarred for life and in suffering for her final years.

All things considered, NOW do you think she might have deserved every penny? And aren't you glad there was SOMEONE to help her stand up for herself, even though you may have thought of of personal injury lawyers as money-grubbing scumbags?

[Mike V. Florida]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by sgwilson904

Mike, sounds like your mind is set on this and none of the facts will change it. Please just consider these reasons why the woman may well have deserved every penny and why, sometimes, these "frivolous" suits are not so frivolous at all.

1. For at least 10 years, McDonald's knew its coffee, when served at 180-190 degrees, was causing severe burns. In that period, more than 700 were severely burned from spills, including children and infants. And not all of them brought the trouble on themselves due to what you might think was their own stupidity. Sometimes a McDonalds employee would spill it on a customer. The company did nothing.

130 degree water will cause 3rd degree burns if skin is exposed for 30 secs of more. It was brought up at trial that cotton pants kept the hot coffee in contact with the skin so 130 would have caused burns as well.

2. Sure, personal responsibility is important. The jury found--and the judge agreed--the victim here was 20% responsible for the spill. Never mind the temp, she should have known better, you say. And how many people who need to add sugar and/or cream to the coffee just handed to them at the drive-thru pull safely to the side of the road to get out and add it?

They all should if they want to prevent being burned! The fact that the temp was coporate wide means that unless it was her first time evey buying coffee there she knew it was extreamly hot when she bought it.


3. But more important, ANY product we buy is, by law, required to be fit for the purpose for which it is sold. With food, that means it must be fit for consumption. Coffee served at 190 degrees is not fit for consumption. Even if you don't spill it, it's a third-degree burn waiting to happen. This is not the opinion of the "old woman's money-grubbing, scumbag lawyer." McDonalds admitted this in court. The company also admitted consumers are not warned and are unaware the temperature of the coffee is SO hot it poses a risk. (What? You don't carry a thermometer to check it before you drink? You expect it to be about the 30-40 degrees cooler, the same temp as it is virtually everywhere else in town where you buy hot coffee? How negligent and irresponsible of YOU!)

190 degree coffee is up to industry standards and since millions if not billions of cups sold at that temp means someone in consuming it.

4. The "McDonalds coffee woman" was never out looking for a so-called jury jackpot from a bunch of stupid citizens who might take pity on a poor, elderly woman. She and her lawyer would have been happy to settle the case for just $20,000--the amount of her medical bills that were not covered by her insurance. No, McDonalds said, here's $800, take it or leave it. THAT'S what prompted the lawsuit. In fact, the way the company acted and how it dealt with its own issue of personal/corporate responsibility was summed up in a single word: callous. That's what the appellate judge decided, not me.

She might not have been but the fact that the suit was brought showed someone was. As for the appellate judge that too is his opinion. If I sell something, anything that meets industry standards I can't see how selling it be callous.

5. Finally, keep this in mind: burns from liquids this hot is not just a minor inconvenience and a little temporary pain. 190-degree coffee causes the worst kind of a burn (third degree) in three to seven SECONDS. It causes not only disfiguration but years and sometimes a lifetime of pain and suffering and permanent disability. It can only be treated with very expensive skin grafting, special whirlpool treatments, and plastic surgery.

No arguement there! Who is responsible for the burns is. You are focused on the womans injuries and not on who is responsible.

Yes, the woman should not have opened hot coffee in the car. Had it been served at 130 degrees instead of 190 as McDonalds insisted, she would have suffered briefly and learned a lesson that she should have known by her age anyway...BUT she wouldn't have been in the worst kind of unbearable pain, scarred for life and in suffering for her final years.

Not true, 130 degree water will cause 3rd degree burns if skin is exposed for 30 secs of more. It was brought up at trial that cotton pants kept the hot coffee in contact with the skin, so 130 would have caused burns as well. 190 degree coffee is the industry standard. Whos standards should they follow the beverage industry or the publics?

All things considered, NOW do you think she might have deserved every penny? And aren't you glad there was SOMEONE to help her stand up for herself, even though you may have thought of of personal injury lawyers as money-grubbing scumbags?

No I don't for the reasons stated several times.

This McDonalds lawsuit has more merit than the MAFCA suit in my opinion.

I have now stated my position several times on this. No more, so get your final word in now. If you want to discuss this off line fine by me I will answer any question you or anyone has via PM or email or even phone if you want just not here anymore.