[briandear]

How did the coffee spill? Did she hold a cup of a beverage that is traditionally served very hot between her legs?

That lawsuit was frivolous. Coffee is hot. If you spill it, it might burn you.

As far as just asking for medical bills — that might have been true until her lawyers smelled a multi-million payday.

Lawyers like that are the reason we have warnings on hair dryers to not use while showering and warnings on coffee cups that warn of the hot beverage inside. Coffee is traditionally made using boiling or near boiling water — unless McDonalds super-heated the water, the temperature at which it was served was consistent with how coffee is normally served.

That it was an elderly lady makes no difference. That’s just emotional distraction and has no relevance. The McDonalds lawsuit ushered in the “nanny” era where people have to be warned against such hazards as “boating carries a risk of serious injury or drowning.” And product costs (including medical care) is dramatically more expensive than it should be because the trial lawyers had to all get paid. Punishment under statute is one thing, but unlimited punitive damages is absurd. We talk about CEOs getting paid to much — not even close to the payday trial lawyers get.

[eropple]

This is a bad and frankly cruel reading of a lawsuit that addresses systemic failures of a corporate entity that had been previously alerted to a design and practice failure of their operation. Similar lawsuits regarding coffee at 179 deg F, rather than 190 deg F, have been thrown out. Almost as if there was an actual problem with what McDonalds' was doing, you know?

That corporate entity had decided it was cheaper to not fix it than to fix it, until a human being who they contributed to significantly harming brought the problem before a jury. And she was found partially responsible for her own injuries, a fact which you elide (while speaking so authoritatively that I must assume you know this to be true, otherwise you wouldn't, yes?), while the jury also found that McDonalds' had been reckless in their operation--that most of the money awarded was a punitive penalty assessed because that corporate entity was cavalier in their treatment of actual, real-not-fictive people.

While we're at it, the punitive award granted was $480,000, not "multi-million"--though the jury asked for it, as two days of McDonalds' coffee revenue, and was reduced by the judge.

You've either been had, or you're trying to do the having. I shall not speculate on which.

[mitchty]

Its pretty obvious you've not read up on the facts of the case and have jumped to a few conclusions. Nobody contests that hot coffee causes mild burns, hot coffee that causes third degree burns in seconds is another matter entirely.

https://segarlaw.com/blog/myths-and-facts-of-the-mcdonalds-h...

Have a read and then come back here and lets hear you argue that the lawsuit wasn't warranted.