(I'm sorry. I know it has no mailing-list-manager content, but given the
number of times people have referred to the case in the course of this
discussion, I just can't hold back any longer.)
As has been mentioned by other people, reading the facts of a given case
is a good thing before making too many claims about it....
--------------
> > some nice lady was checking on her roast, with the oven door open,
> > and her kid decided the door was a fun thing to bounce on, so did.
> > repeatedly. apparently with the mother watching.
>
> This has GOT to be the same chick who drives around with a cup of
> scalding-hot coffee clenched between her legs.
leaving aside that one ought have a reasonable expectation of not
requiring major surgery from having a common accident with a food
product (that coffee would've been just as hot if you had ordered it
and spilled it on yr hands while opening it at yr table to add sugar.
as, apparently happened to hundreds of people who also sued mcdonalds
for the same product; they were indeed serving it considerably hotter
than the industry average. they were certainly serving it a lot
hotter than in the coffee bar i worked in, if the infrequency with
which any of us there suffered 3rd degree burns is any indication),
that isn't even what happened. she was in her son's passenger seat,
holding it for a moment as she took the lid off). allowing one's child
to bounce on the open door of an oven in use seems an entirely different
order of stupidty than holding one's coffee with one's knees for a
moment while opening it.
what actually happened, in detail:
>From the October 24th, 1994 issue of National Law Journal, Letters section
HEADLINE: Verdict Against McDonald's Is Fully Justified
BYLINE: S. REED MORGAN, S. Reed Morgan & Associates, Houston
I AM THE LAWYER who tried Stella Liebeck's case in Albuquerque, N.M.,
from Aug. 8-16. There has been a great uproar from people displeased at
the size of the verdict, who see it as an example of the product of a
runaway jury and a plaintiff who will not accept responsibility for her
actions.
Stella Liebeck, 79, purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee while a
passenger in her grandson's automobile. Ms. Liebeck attempted to hold
the cup securely between her knees while she removed the plastic lid. It
tipped over, causing third-degree burns that necessitated hospitalization
for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds and
skin grafting, and led to permanent scarring and disability for more than
two years. The jury awarded her $ 200,000 in compensatory damages,
reduced by 20 percent for her negligence, and $ 2.7 million in punitive
damages.
The following information was presented to an impartial jury, which
found that the product is unreasonably dangerous and is sold in breach of
the implied warranty of fitness imposed by the Uniform Commercial Code:
McDonald's Corp. sold its coffee at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit by
corporate specification. McDonald's coffee, if spilled, could cause
full-thickness burns (third degree to the muscle/fatty tissue layer) in
two to seven seconds.
McDonald's knew about this unacceptable risk for more than 10 years;
it was brought to the company's attention by other lawsuits (more than
700 reported claims from 1982 to 1992). The company's witnesses
testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat. McDonald's
generates revenues in excess of $ 1.3 million daily from the sale of
coffee alone.
Ms. Liebeck's treating physician testified that this was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen. Other expert witnesses termed the
risk of harm from McDonald's coffee to be unacceptable.
Most consumers don't know that coffee this hot causes such injuries.
Nor do they know McDonald's made a practice of serving its coffee this hot.
The jury applied the law of punitive damages to deter McDonald's and
other similarly situated corporations from exposing consumers to this
risk. It imposed a penalty of two days' revenue from coffee sales, or $
2.7 million, for willfully ignoring the safety of customers who feed the
McDonald's money tree. The system has numerous methods of overturning a
verdict that is excessive.
Why should we tolerate corporate irresponsibility? What's wrong with
penalizing irresponsible behavior that injures consumers?
The news media, the day after the verdict, established that coffee at
the McDonald's in Albuquerque is now sold at 158 degrees. At that
temperature, it would take about 60 seconds to cause third-degree burns.
Mission accomplished.
-------------------------------
Follow-Ups:
|
|
