Methais
04-11-2007, 06:47 PM
I stumbled across this while looking for a stupid picture for that other thread. Everyone's heard of this infamous lawsuit, but I never knew anything more than "some old lady spilled coffee on herself and won a lawsuit." It's almost interesting:
"Injuries suffered:
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on sixteen percent of her skin (Some sources say six percent). She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."
McDonald's Operating Procedures
"Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste."
Hot Water Stats
"It is easy to receive third degree burns from exposure to hot tap water, which comes from not only hot drinks and pots cooking on the stove, but from bath water. An approximate one-second exposure to 160° F water will result in third degree burns. Where the water is 130° F, an approximate half-minute exposure will result in third degree burns."
I read also that random samplings were done at other coffee shops, the hottest was 20 degrees less than McDonald's. 180 to 190 degrees is close to boiling, and far hotter than I would ever expect to get a cup of coffee. I don't think that all of the cases like this we hear about are as absurd as they sound superficially.
Comments: 225
Contest Entries: 12 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Here's more of the facts from Wikipedia (pay particular attention to the part about "attempt to settle"):
Common summary
What follows is a synthesis of the treatment of this case on popular websites and in common chain letters.
In February, 1992, Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-thru of a local McDonald's restaurant, which she then spilled on her lap. The hot coffee scalded her, and she subsequently sued McDonald's. In 1994, the jury awarded her 2.7 million dollars US in damages. The award was reduced to $480,000 by the judge. The decision was appealed by both McDonalds and Liebeck, and the parties eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
Controversy
Because this summary is frequently the only exposure to the case that the average citizen has, the case has become iconic of frivolous and outrageous lawsuits for many people, and is often used as an example of the need for tort reform in the United States legal system by those who support such reform. Opponents of tort reform argue, however, that Liebeck's recovery was just, and that the common summary omits significant, relevant information. In turn, tort reform supporters argue that the case is meritless and outrageous even with the additional information, and the omissions are not significant.
Attempt to settle and litigation
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US$20,000 to cover her medical costs, but the company offered only US$800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck filed suit, accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured."
During the case it was discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Despite this claim, home coffee makers often reach comperable temperatures. For example, Bunn [1] mentions "the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200°", and [2] mentions "water at 200° Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)". Cuisinart mentions for at least one of their coffeemakers [3] that "After brewing, the heater plate will keep the coffee at about 180°-185°F".
Liebeck's attorney claims that McDonald's quality control manager testified that foods hotter than 140 degrees constituted a burn hazard, and that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat. Such testimony, if it occurred, is factually incorrect.
Testimony by witnesses for McDonald's revealed that McDonald's did not intend to reduce the heat of its coffee. However, the National Coffee Association of USA recommends that coffee be brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and maintained at a temperature of 180-185 degrees for optimal flavor and drunk immediately. [4] Starbucks, for example, serves its coffee at this temperature, and, indeed, has been subjected to similar lawsuits for coffee spills. Most courts have dismissed these cases against Starbucks. Burger King was recently sued for an identical case of a woman spilling coffee in her lap.[5]
Documents obtained from McDonald's also showed that from 1982 to 1992, there were more than 700 complaints about the heat of McDonald's coffee, some of which resulted in injuries of varying degrees of severity. (To put this into context, this represents only one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's.)
Some of these incidents resulted in legal claims, some of which McDonald's settled, particularly when fault for the actual spill was clear.
Settlement
Applying the principles of comparative liability, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to US$160,000. In addition, they awarded her US$2.7 million in punitive damages.
However, the judge reduced punitive damages to US$480,000; thus Liebeck was awarded US$640,000 in total. Both McDonald's and Liebeck appealed, and in December 1994, the two came to a confidential settlement, the amount of which is secret, but is believed to be approximately equal to the amount of the final judgment.
Conclusion
The McDonald's coffee case is widely known, and is sometimes referred to as "the case where the old lady spilled coffee on herself, sued McDonald's and received millions of dollars." It has spawned a commonly forwarded email entitled "The Stella Awards", which consists of fabricated lawsuits that are claimed to be true. This, in turn, provided the inspiration for the True Stella Awards, a mailing list by Randy Cassingham which provides reports and commentary on actual cases within the American court system.
I might add that I don't know, of course, but I can certainly imagine a big, health-unconscious corporation like McDonalds that trafficks in artery-clogging saturated fat hiring PR people to cultivate this urban legend. The money that woman was awarded, by the way, was probably a 20 second take for McDonalds Worldwide.
http://www.freakingnews.com/stories/thread.asp?cid=30&eid=20231&page=4
"Injuries suffered:
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on sixteen percent of her skin (Some sources say six percent). She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."
McDonald's Operating Procedures
"Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste."
Hot Water Stats
"It is easy to receive third degree burns from exposure to hot tap water, which comes from not only hot drinks and pots cooking on the stove, but from bath water. An approximate one-second exposure to 160° F water will result in third degree burns. Where the water is 130° F, an approximate half-minute exposure will result in third degree burns."
I read also that random samplings were done at other coffee shops, the hottest was 20 degrees less than McDonald's. 180 to 190 degrees is close to boiling, and far hotter than I would ever expect to get a cup of coffee. I don't think that all of the cases like this we hear about are as absurd as they sound superficially.
Comments: 225
Contest Entries: 12 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Here's more of the facts from Wikipedia (pay particular attention to the part about "attempt to settle"):
Common summary
What follows is a synthesis of the treatment of this case on popular websites and in common chain letters.
In February, 1992, Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-thru of a local McDonald's restaurant, which she then spilled on her lap. The hot coffee scalded her, and she subsequently sued McDonald's. In 1994, the jury awarded her 2.7 million dollars US in damages. The award was reduced to $480,000 by the judge. The decision was appealed by both McDonalds and Liebeck, and the parties eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
Controversy
Because this summary is frequently the only exposure to the case that the average citizen has, the case has become iconic of frivolous and outrageous lawsuits for many people, and is often used as an example of the need for tort reform in the United States legal system by those who support such reform. Opponents of tort reform argue, however, that Liebeck's recovery was just, and that the common summary omits significant, relevant information. In turn, tort reform supporters argue that the case is meritless and outrageous even with the additional information, and the omissions are not significant.
Attempt to settle and litigation
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US$20,000 to cover her medical costs, but the company offered only US$800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck filed suit, accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured."
During the case it was discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit (82-88 degrees Celsius). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Despite this claim, home coffee makers often reach comperable temperatures. For example, Bunn [1] mentions "the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200°", and [2] mentions "water at 200° Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)". Cuisinart mentions for at least one of their coffeemakers [3] that "After brewing, the heater plate will keep the coffee at about 180°-185°F".
Liebeck's attorney claims that McDonald's quality control manager testified that foods hotter than 140 degrees constituted a burn hazard, and that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat. Such testimony, if it occurred, is factually incorrect.
Testimony by witnesses for McDonald's revealed that McDonald's did not intend to reduce the heat of its coffee. However, the National Coffee Association of USA recommends that coffee be brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and maintained at a temperature of 180-185 degrees for optimal flavor and drunk immediately. [4] Starbucks, for example, serves its coffee at this temperature, and, indeed, has been subjected to similar lawsuits for coffee spills. Most courts have dismissed these cases against Starbucks. Burger King was recently sued for an identical case of a woman spilling coffee in her lap.[5]
Documents obtained from McDonald's also showed that from 1982 to 1992, there were more than 700 complaints about the heat of McDonald's coffee, some of which resulted in injuries of varying degrees of severity. (To put this into context, this represents only one complaint per 24 million cups of coffee sold by McDonald's.)
Some of these incidents resulted in legal claims, some of which McDonald's settled, particularly when fault for the actual spill was clear.
Settlement
Applying the principles of comparative liability, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to US$160,000. In addition, they awarded her US$2.7 million in punitive damages.
However, the judge reduced punitive damages to US$480,000; thus Liebeck was awarded US$640,000 in total. Both McDonald's and Liebeck appealed, and in December 1994, the two came to a confidential settlement, the amount of which is secret, but is believed to be approximately equal to the amount of the final judgment.
Conclusion
The McDonald's coffee case is widely known, and is sometimes referred to as "the case where the old lady spilled coffee on herself, sued McDonald's and received millions of dollars." It has spawned a commonly forwarded email entitled "The Stella Awards", which consists of fabricated lawsuits that are claimed to be true. This, in turn, provided the inspiration for the True Stella Awards, a mailing list by Randy Cassingham which provides reports and commentary on actual cases within the American court system.
I might add that I don't know, of course, but I can certainly imagine a big, health-unconscious corporation like McDonalds that trafficks in artery-clogging saturated fat hiring PR people to cultivate this urban legend. The money that woman was awarded, by the way, was probably a 20 second take for McDonalds Worldwide.
http://www.freakingnews.com/stories/thread.asp?cid=30&eid=20231&page=4