The alpha-Male...

[JR4AU]

At the end of the day, you have a clumsy slob who spilled her coffee, sustained some injury and won a cash reward.  You don't like the summary presented on the interWebs because it doesn't tell the whole story.  Perhaps, the only thing inaccurate about the story is the final cash settlement that Stella finally did receive. 
- Did the additional facts really matter to me?  To be honest with you, not much... 
- Would the facts matter to a sensible-thinking person on a jury?  Maybe some... 
- Were the compensatory damages resonable?  Probably not...
- Was the original punitive damage award reasonable?  I think it was absolutely ridiculous. 
- Was the reduced punitive award reasonable?  No... 

I'm sorry, but even as you presented it, this case should serve as a call for tort reform.  I'm not saying that she didn't deserve anything, but these awards make no sense to me.  I don't care if it was McDonalds or McDowells. 

I like that you called her a clumsy slob.  You know this lady, or do you just have to run her down persoally to feel better about your position?  Lets also recall that SHE was pretty reasonable in her original demands, and McDonalds told her to get fucked.  But hey, I figured facts wouldn't mean much to you.  Hey, if you want to live in a society where companies can do things so outside the industry norm, and where an accident with their product results in SERIOUS injury, where with other similar products it would not, and you just have to say, oh well, that's life, I'm a clumsy slob that spilled coffee on myself...have a ball.  People usually talk tough like this...until it happens to them or their family, then, it's somehow different.  Same way with tough on crime talk...until it's YOUR precious son or daughter that gets in trouble.  And I've seen it too many times to count.  Talk is cheap.

OTOH, I agree that the awards were excessive, but I also think that it could have been easily avoided by McDonalds doing what was right.  You know, using some common sense, not only in paying the bills, but in how they sell their product to the public.  You people love that common sense stuff don't you?  Does it really make common sense to serve a product that, if consumed as served, not spilled, but consumed as intended and at the temperature served, would cause a serious injury?  Does it make common sense to serve a product that isn't fit for consumption WHEN IT'S SERVED?  On outrageous awards...while they might be, tell me another way to punish companies that are doing things that clearly present a danger to the publice?  Tell me another way to get them to do things "the common sense way".   

[JR4AU]

And at the end of the day, who got theirs? Ahhah. You guessed it........THE LAWYERS.

I only dislike them because I is po and they is so rich and upstanding. It do be a pitiful life I do be have. I sho is hongry. I wish somebody would rear-end me so's I could get Ken Nugent to sue dey ass and win me millins of dolarses.

You're seriously telling on yourself.  Make light if you wish...your sole gripe is that lawyers make money.  That's pathetic.  And you're so ignorant about the legal system, you apparently don't know the difference in a civil and criminal case...but you do seem to know that "lawyers get paid".  Damn shame that a professional goes to work and makes a profit for providing his time and professional services. 

[wesfau2]

On outrageous awards...while they might be, tell me another way to punish companies that are doing things that clearly present a danger to the publice?  Tell me another way to get them to do things "the common sense way".   

Side note:  I watched a great documentary last year, The Corporation, that sought to ascertain the personality characteristics of corporations.  As you know, corporations are "persons" under the law.  The filmmaker found that the corporation exhibits all the classic symptoms of a psychopath: no empathy, no remorse, acting solely in self-interest. 

[GH2001]

You're seriously telling on yourself.  Make light if you wish...your sole gripe is that lawyers make money.  That's pathetic.  And you're so ignorant about the legal system, you apparently don't know the difference in a civil and criminal case...but you do seem to know that "lawyers get paid".  Damn shame that a professional goes to work and makes a profit for providing his time and professional services. 

I think its the fact that many trial lawyers take advantage of situations to cash in and chase ambulances like Mr. Nugent. Its a broad brush to paint with, but its the reason why people have a very negative image of lawyers in general. Taxes, Bankruptcy, Real Estate, Prosecutors - I have no issue with.  They do good services for people. Its the former (ie - Nugent, John Edwards and their like) that I have a problem with.

[CCTAU]

I like that you called her a clumsy slob.  You know this lady, or do you just have to run her down persoally to feel better about your position?  Lets also recall that SHE was pretty reasonable in her original demands, and McDonalds told her to get fucked.  But hey, I figured facts wouldn't mean much to you.  Hey, if you want to live in a society where companies can do things so outside the industry norm, and where an accident with their product results in SERIOUS injury, where with other similar products it would not, and you just have to say, oh well, that's life, I'm a clumsy slob that spilled coffee on myself...have a ball.  People usually talk tough like this...until it happens to them or their family, then, it's somehow different.  Same way with tough on crime talk...until it's YOUR precious son or daughter that gets in trouble.  And I've seen it too many times to count.  Talk is cheap.

OTOH, I agree that the awards were excessive, but I also think that it could have been easily avoided by McDonalds doing what was right.  You know, using some common sense, not only in paying the bills, but in how they sell their product to the public.  You people love that common sense stuff don't you?  Does it really make common sense to serve a product that, if consumed as served, not spilled, but consumed as intended and at the temperature served, would cause a serious injury?  Does it make common sense to serve a product that isn't fit for consumption WHEN IT'S SERVED?  On outrageous awards...while they might be, tell me another way to punish companies that are doing things that clearly present a danger to the publice?  Tell me another way to get them to do things "the common sense way".   

For generations coffee beans were dropped into a boiling pot of water and then served. After this verdict, a good cup of hot coffee cannot be found anywhere. Now even the lawyers cannot buy a good cup of hot coffee. Once again greedy lawyers changed society to avoid future litigation. It's a vicious cycle. I mean now we have "iced" coffee. I wonder who is gonna sue when their tongue accidentally gets stuck to the ice.

[JR4AU]

For generations coffee beans were dropped into a boiling pot of water and then served. After this verdict, a good cup of hot coffee cannot be found anywhere. Now even the lawyers cannot buy a good cup of hot coffee. Once again greedy lawyers changed society to avoid future litigation. It's a vicious cycle. I mean now we have "iced" coffee. I wonder who is gonna sue when their tongue accidentally gets stuck to the ice.

FAIL!  On the bright side...you can count yourself one of the unwashed masses Tim James hopes to sway his way by accusing other candidates of being "trial lawyers". 

[GH2001]

FAIL!  On the bright side...you can count yourself one of the unwashed masses Tim James hopes to sway his way by accusing other candidates of being "trial lawyers". 

Kind of like the unwashed masses in November 2008 who Barack Hussein Obama swayed his way by falsely painting a BROAD, negative picture of banks, oil companies and insurance companies who are simply out to "screw the little man"?

[CCTAU]

FAIL!  On the bright side...you can count yourself one of the unwashed masses Tim James hopes to sway his way by accusing other candidates of being "trial lawyers". 

Would you take the case, or not? The pay could be really big. Maybe Starbucks this time. McDonald's has already been hit.

[GarMan]

I like that you called her a clumsy slob.  You know this lady, or do you just have to run her down persoally to feel better about your position?  Lets also recall that SHE was pretty reasonable in her original demands, and McDonalds told her to get phuked.  But hey, I figured facts wouldn't mean much to you.  Hey, if you want to live in a society where companies can do things so outside the industry norm, and where an accident with their product results in SERIOUS injury, where with other similar products it would not, and you just have to say, oh well, that's life, I'm a clumsy slob that spilled coffee on myself...have a ball.  People usually talk tough like this...until it happens to them or their family, then, it's somehow different.  Same way with tough on crime talk...until it's YOUR precious son or daughter that gets in trouble.  And I've seen it too many times to count.  Talk is cheap. 

She's a clumsy slob because she felt it necessary to prepare her coffee in a moving car and was unable to adequately secure the coffee without spilling it.  Remember, they did find her at least 20% at fault. 

She came to them with reasonable demands, and they declined.  That's no reason to reward her with a jackpot award.  As I said, I agree that she deserved something, but the original jackpot was absurd. 

Industry norms?  I completely disagree.  Companies, products and services are remembered when they exceed the norms.  If McDonalds' coffee tasted the same and was served at the same temperature as Burger King and McDowells, they wouldn't stand out.  The temperature did exceed norms to the point of becoming hazardous.  For this reason, I agree that she deserved something, but the jackpot was absurd. 

OTOH, I agree that the awards were excessive, but I also think that it could have been easily avoided by McDonalds doing what was right.  You know, using some common sense, not only in paying the bills, but in how they sell their product to the public.  You people love that common sense stuff don't you?  Does it really make common sense to serve a product that, if consumed as served, not spilled, but consumed as intended and at the temperature served, would cause a serious injury?  Does it make common sense to serve a product that isn't fit for consumption WHEN IT'S SERVED?  On outrageous awards...while they might be, tell me another way to punish companies that are doing things that clearly present a danger to the publice?  Tell me another way to get them to do things "the common sense way".   

It's not your job to tell companies to do things your way, or Stella's way.  What if I like 180 degree coffee?  Who are you to deny me that???  Let market forces prevail.  If the coffee's too hot to drink and their consumers don't approve, they'll stop being consumers.  It's not your job to punish companies when they fail to meet your or Stella's standards.  It's everyone's job through free market forces.

[JR4AU]

Would you take the case, or not? The pay could be really big. Maybe Starbucks this time. McDonald's has already been hit.

Funny thing is, Starbucks doesn't serve their coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns! And the reason they don't is there is no reasonable reason to do so!  Yet, they serve some damn hot coffee and good coffee!  

And, if I sued folks, which I don't (not because I'm against it, just not what I do), if it had legal merit, I sure would.  And here's what I know about people, you included...  If you or yours got burned by something so outside the industry norm as to make it unreasonably dangerous, you'd sue too.  You can pop off about it all day long.  I've seen way to many "good common sense people" try to "do the right thing" when they got hurt or damaged, and just try to be made whole...they get kicked around by the company hoping they'll just go away...they finally have no option but to sue.  You'd do it too.

[CCTAU]

Funny thing is, Starbucks doesn't serve their coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns! And the reason they don't is there is no reasonable reason to do so!  Yet, they serve some damn hot coffee and good coffee!  

And, if I sued folks, which I don't (not because I'm against it, just not what I do), if it had legal merit, I sure would.  And here's what I know about people, you included...  If you or yours got burned by something so outside the industry norm as to make it unreasonably dangerous, you'd sue too.  You can pop off about it all day long.  I've seen way to many "good common sense people" try to "do the right thing" when they got hurt or damaged, and just try to be made whole...they get kicked around by the company hoping they'll just go away...they finally have no option but to sue.  You'd do it too.

At the time. it was the industry norm. Everyone knew that if you wanted a good hot cup of coffee, go to McDonald's.

And if this damn site carried over quotes, you would see that I was asking if you would take the case of the frozen tongue on the iced coffee. And then I suggested suing Starbucks because they area big company that could afford to pay out a huge settlement that would only add up top maybe two days worth of cookie sales. And folks would be sympathetic to McDonald's because they had already been skewered.

[JR4AU]

She's a clumsy slob because she felt it necessary to prepare her coffee in a moving car and was unable to adequately secure the coffee without spilling it.  Remember, they did find her at least 20% at fault. 

She came to them with reasonable demands, and they declined.  That's no reason to reward her with a jackpot award.  As I said, I agree that she deserved something, but the original jackpot was absurd. 

Industry norms?  I completely disagree.  Companies, products and services are remembered when they exceed the norms.  If McDonalds' coffee tasted the same and was served at the same temperature as Burger King and McDowells, they wouldn't stand out.  The temperature did exceed norms to the point of becoming hazardous.  For this reason, I agree that she deserved something, but the jackpot was absurd. 

It's not your job to tell companies to do things your way, or Stella's way.  What if I like 180 degree coffee?  Who are you to deny me that???  Let market forces prevail.  If the coffee's too hot to drink and their consumers don't approve, they'll stop being consumers.  It's not your job to punish companies when they fail to meet your or Stella's standards.  It's everyone's job through free market forces.

Highlighted a portion above to illustrate that you've still failed to read all the facts and comprehend them, though you've stated the facts beyond "hot coffee, she spilled it, her fault" are all you need to really know.

Agree about the standing out part, to a point.  If you're going to market to the masses, you have to keep it within certain reasonable windows of acceptable norms, especially regarding your consumers physical saftey.   There's no, NONE, ZERO logical reason to serve coffee that hot...the reason being is that NOBODY can consume it that hot without injury.  Again, we're not talking about "shit that's hot" hot...we're talking about will cause 3rd degree burns with only  You physically couldn't "like 180 degree coffee" and the fact that you have to use an aburdity to illustrate your point, makes my point.

I agree with you about market forces to a point.  BUT, people shouldn't have to sustain serious injury to find out they aren't partial to and won't ever again consume a certain company's products.  I would also say that though I think punitive damages are necessary to punish companies, because all they have is a bottom line (you can't tar and feather a company), you have to hit them where it hurts when they step outside reasaonable boundries.  But, I don't think the plaintiffs should recover the vast majority of them.  A large percentage of punitive damages should be redirected towards another source, charitable, or something to provide safety measures to prevent future incidents...I'm not smart enough to come up with it, but people shouldn't hit the lottery when injured, they should be made whole, and maybe given some money to compensate for the time and trouble of having to collect their damages.  Lawyers, provide a professional service, and like any other profession deserve to get paid, and paid a professional type wage.  How much is enough or too much?  You're all about free markets right?  You want to cap a certain profession's money?  What about doctors...do they make "too much money"?  Some things are out of whack, like lawyers making millions on class actions, where the class members collect a few dollars, but that's NOT the norm, and you know as well as I do, that it's the cases that are way far and away outside the box used to push tort reform agendas.   And, when people with agendas, like "The Stella Awards" have to misinform the public to push their agenda, that tells you something.  

Again, the system aint perfect.  Lawyers come in all shapes, sizes, colors, moral and ethical make ups.  Like society, there's a small minority that reflect badly on the vast majority...you can believe what you want, but all the lawyers AND judges I know do their level best to weed out the bad ones.  NONE of us want that stigma.  Bad cases, frivolous cases...they're like bad lawyers, not near the norm.  Throing the baby out with the bath water isn't the answer in my opinion.  

[JR4AU]

At the time. it was the industry norm. Everyone knew that if you wanted a good hot cup of coffee, go to McDonald's.

And if this damn site carried over quotes, you would see that I was asking if you would take the case of the frozen tongue on the iced coffee. And then I suggested suing Starbucks because they area big company that could afford to pay out a huge settlement that would only add up top maybe two days worth of cookie sales. And folks would be sympathetic to McDonald's because they had already been skewered.

One of the major points of the McD's case was that it wasn't the industry norm to serve coffee that hot...you'd know that if you'd read the facts.  Where McDs served it 180-185, all others served it around 145-150.

To give an answer on your Starbucks question...if Starbucks were using dry ice in their coffee, and had gotten numerous complaints and had notice that people were being "burned" by the dry ice, yet persisted in serving something that was causing injuries, and they were on notice...even though the vast majority of the public liked the product...I might very well take the case.  If they were within industy norms, if their product wasn't unreasonably dangerous, if the injured party was clearly at fault, I wouldn't.  The thing in the McDs case is that while Ms Liebeck spilled the coffee herself, had she spilled coffee from Burger King, or Dunkin Donuts, she wouldn't have sustained the injuries she sustained.  While it only matters to some of you that she spilled hot coffee, and tha coffee is supposed to be hot...to much of the public ALL the relevant facts matter.  There's been at least one study done on public opinion on the McDs case where the opinion on whether it was a frivolous suit changed from about 97% thinking it was frivolous based on media reported facts, to about 95% thinking it wasn't after all the facts became known to them. 

[CCTAU]

To give an answer on your Starbucks question...if Starbucks were using dry ice in their coffee,

Now why would anyone want to do that? You just want to sue so you are making stuff up.

What if one piece of ice somehow stayed dry and stuck to an old lady's tongue and pulled the skin off? Would that be a frivolous lawsuit or just an accident? In a lawyer's mind, do accidents even exist any more?

[JR4AU]

Now why would anyone want to do that? You just want to sue so you are making stuff up.

What if one piece of ice somehow stayed dry and stuck to an old lady's tongue and pulled the skin off? Would that be a frivolous lawsuit or just an accident? In a lawyer's mind, do accidents even exist any more?

 

[CCTAU]

You'll put your eye out.....

And then who would you sue?

[Snaggletiger]

We can play this game all day.  The interWebs is full of 'em. 

Why teh quotes function is kicking my ass today, I don't know.  Anywho, the ones cited in your post concerning the guy stealing hubcaps, woman tripping over her own baby etc.  All made up.  Fabrications.  No lawsuit ever existed nor do the law firms referenced in the article exist. 

By golly gee....what?  Someone lied?  Must have been the lawyers.

[JR4AU]

You'll put your eye out.....

And then who would you sue?

Must suck when all your preconceived notions are shot all to hell.  Stay strong in your beliefs and the boys down at the pool hall will still let you drink cheap beer with them.

[JR4AU]

Why teh quotes function is kicking my ass today, I don't know.  Anywho, the ones cited in your post concerning the guy stealing hubcaps, woman tripping over her own baby etc.  All made up.  Fabrications.  No lawsuit ever existed nor do the law firms referenced in the article exist. 

By golly gee....what?  Someone lied?  Must have been the lawyers.

The hell you say!  Why, someone making up shit about lawyers to discredit them?  No fucking way!

[GarMan]

Highlighted a portion above to illustrate that you've still failed to read all the facts and comprehend them, though you've stated the facts beyond "hot coffee, she spilled it, her fault" are all you need to really know.

I haven't failed at anything here.  We have no proof that the car wasn't moving.  They claimed that they were stopped, but we don't really know.  I can only presume the obvious.  The motor vehicle was in operation, stopped or moving, while she spilled her coffee.  Take DUI for instance.  If you're impaired and found in the driver's seat, you're getting charged with a DUI whether you were actually driving or not. 

Agree about the standing out part, to a point.  If you're going to market to the masses, you have to keep it within certain reasonable windows of acceptable norms, especially regarding your consumers physical saftey.   There's no, NONE, ZERO logical reason to serve coffee that hot...the reason being is that NOBODY can consume it that hot without injury.  Again, we're not talking about "poop that's hot" hot...we're talking about will cause 3rd degree burns with only  You physically couldn't "like 180 degree coffee" and the fact that you have to use an aburdity to illustrate your point, makes my point.

When you make and pour a fresh cup of coffee at home, can you immediately start drinking it like it's water out of a fountain?  The answer is NO if you're being honest.  Yes, the coffee was unreasonbly hot for immediate consumption. 

I agree with you about market forces to a point.  BUT, people shouldn't have to sustain serious injury to find out they aren't partial to and won't ever again consume a certain company's products.  I would also say that though I think punitive damages are necessary to punish companies, because all they have is a bottom line (you can't tar and feather a company), you have to hit them where it hurts when they step outside reasaonable boundries.  But, I don't think the plaintiffs should recover the vast majority of them.  A large percentage of punitive damages should be redirected towards another source, charitable, or something to provide safety measures to prevent future incidents...I'm not smart enough to come up with it, but people shouldn't hit the lottery when injured, they should be made whole, and maybe given some money to compensate for the time and trouble of having to collect their damages.  

McDonalds' coffee wasn't a new product, and Stella wasn't the first person to ever purchase this product.  I really believe that this case extends beyond the bounds of reason whether you want to argue the actual facts of those reported on the Stella Reports website.   

Lawyers, provide a professional service, and like any other profession deserve to get paid, and paid a professional type wage.  How much is enough or too much?  You're all about free markets right?  You want to cap a certain profession's money?  What about doctors...do they make "too much money"?  Some things are out of whack, like lawyers making millions on class actions, where the class members collect a few dollars, but that's NOT the norm, and you know as well as I do, that it's the cases that are way far and away outside the box used to push tort reform agendas.   And, when people with agendas, like "The Stella Awards" have to misinform the public to push their agenda, that tells you something.  

This is where we'll disagree to some extent as well.  In my profession, I implement systems that save companies millions of dollars.  Should I be compensated based on the benefits gained from my service?  Or, should I be compensated a fair marketable rate for the services provided?  These jackpot awards push the envelope of reason, norm AND otherwise. 

Again, the system aint perfect.  Lawyers come in all shapes, sizes, colors, moral and ethical make ups.  Like society, there's a small minority that reflect badly on the vast majority...you can believe what you want, but all the lawyers AND judges I know do their level best to weed out the bad ones.  NONE of us want that stigma.  Bad cases, frivolous cases...they're like bad lawyers, not near the norm.  Throing the baby out with the bath water isn't the answer in my opinion.  

I don't think we want to throw the baby out.  There are a lot of norms in your profession that many of us find unreasonable and unappetizing.  Many just use these few exceptions as examples of the abusive practices.