Posted on 10/24/2013 6:02:54 AM PDT by Fawn
It's really unbelievable what happened to Stella Liebeck. You just have to watch to see how the media turned on this little old lady who lived in Albuquerque. Obviously a villain, right? And at 5:00, prepare to see what the coffee actually did to her. It's not pretty. Well ... nothing in her situation was.
The injuries were severe but it was her own fault. It is ludicrous to say that there needs to be a warning label stating that hot coffee is hot.
Hot coffee is hot. Groundbreaking stuff right there.
It is too bad she is not competent enough to drink coffee without spilling it. Not my problem
Those are bad burns. But it’s hot coffee. I don’t want to be forced to drink tepid coffee because 1 in 24 million gets burned. This is as frivolous a law suit as it ever was.
I’m sure that some have choked to death on a Big Mac but that doesn’t mean McDonalds needs to puree them in a blender.
The woman was maimed and it was the franchisee’s fault.
No, was the punishment appropriate? I don't know. Was the cases excessive? Not when it is viewed in the proper context.
But again, that is not exciting nor newsworthy. Facts are sometimes detrimental to a good story.
Probably the hottest thing she ever had between her legs.
It also helped her son was a lawyer.
Upworthy is a left-wing website. I will pass on giving them a click.
touche’
Exactamundo.
And that's why McDonalds got spanked.
For those of you who only read the “media’s” remedy for the poor woman’s problems was a “warning label,” it is not. While the woman was compensated in part due to her injuries the real remedy was getting McDonald’s to serve the hot coffee at a more reasonable temperature. Credit also go to McD for addressing the issue and fixing the problem they were causing so that others did not receive 2* & 3* burns.
And yes a lot of you put coffee cups between you legs, on the dash, seat, roof and other places.
I use the case as an example in products liability class. Not that a product can't be dangerous, just that the danger has to be justified. Others have posted the legal cure for McD ... to have coffee temperature be set by some rational means (market preference), and controlled. That is much better than "as hot as we can make it" (to get aroma in the restaurant, which causes food sales to increase), and "50 serious burns is statistically insignificant" (so why should we even consider selling it at a temperature other than "as hot as we can make it").
From Wiki: "Liebeck's attorneys argued that at 180–190 °F (82.2–87.8 °C), McDonald's coffee was defective, claiming it was too hot and more likely to cause serious injury than coffee served at any other establishment. McDonald's had refused several prior opportunities to settle for less than what the jury ultimately awarded.[2] The jury damages included $160,000[3] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. "
and
"On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard S.E. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, which didn't have cup holders, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[11] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[12]"
Temperatures over 140 farenheit will scald immediately, yet most coffee is served between 160-195 degrees. My Keurig is at the high end of that scale and brews at 192 degrees, two degrees above the coffee in the McDonald's case. I have yet to burn myself (except, on occasion, my tongue), because I know it's hot.
She seems like a ‘nice’ little old lady. And I hate that she injured herself.
But people injure themselves all the time, and it isn’t always someone else’s fault - to the tune of $500,000.
Stella says she “didn’t sue for the money,” but that BULL****.
She was injured. And she thought that pain gave her the right to injure someone else.
The new ‘morality’ of our secular society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.