It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Not Just a Hot Cup Anymore ? How about a little litigousness with your coffee?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

More than 20 years ago, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck ordered coffee at a McDonald’s drive-through in Albuquerque, N.M. She spilled the coffee, was burned, and one year later, sued McDonald’s. The jury awarded her $2.9 million. Her story became a media sensation and fodder for talk-show hosts, late-night comedians, sitcom writers and even political pundits. But cleverness may have come at the expense of context, as this Retro Report video illustrates. And below, a consumer affairs reporter for The Times reflects on how the world has changed since the lawsuit.


www.nytimes.com...


Tort reform refers to proposed changes in common law civil justice systems that would reduce tort litigation or damages. Tort actions are civil common law claims first created in the English commonwealth system as a non-legislative means for compensating wrongs and harm done by one party to another's person, property or other protected interests (e.g. physical injury or reputation, under libel and slander laws). Tort reform advocates focus on personal injury common law rules in particular.

In the United States, tort reform is a contentious political issue. US tort reform advocates propose, among other things, procedural limits on the ability to file claims, and capping the awards of damages. Supporters of the existing tort system, including consumer advocates, argue that reformers have mis-stated the existence of any real factual issue and criticize tort reform as disguised corporate welfare.[1][2]

In Commonwealth countries as well as U.S. states including Texas, Georgia and California, the losing party must pay court costs of the opposing party.[3]


en.wikipedia.org...


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


So, are we lawsuit crazy? Yes. Should a woman have handled a very hot cup of coffee in such a poorly thought out matter? No.

Perhaps it's just our twisted court systems that need an overhaul. Or burn them down and start from scratch. Get some *real* common sense in charge.

This should be an interesting discussion




edit on Fri Oct 25 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


Some people deserve their compensation, but the vast majority are just in it for the cash.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


She was awarded an undisclosed amount and her injuries were way more severe than the media gave her credit for. She received third degree burns to her legs and groining area so I don't believe this lawsuit is the one you need to use for an arguement.

In my opinion she deserved anything she got from McDonald's. Go look for some pictures of the burn. Horrible. Here's what really happened.
Hot coffee
edit on 24-10-2013 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Sorry folks but this is moronic:

1. Only an utter moron would expect a hot drink to be "cool" enough to spill on your lap without causing pain.
2. Given 1 only a moron would put said hot drink between their legs.
3. Only complete moron would take a pot of coffee from a machine (pathetic defensive point in the video ) in their own home, pour it onto their lap, and expect NOT to get burnt!!!!!!!!!!
4. Only a complete moron would take a cup of instant coffee made from a boiled kettle (vast majority of cups made in the western world in offices everywhere) , pour it onto their lap and NOT expect to get burnt.
5. Given 3 and 4 what moron expects any difference from a hot drink bought on the high street.

This is about greed and money, pure and simple.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


I've always thought the woman concerned should have been counter sued for bringing the human race into dispute. Her actions finally proved that humans are not quite as intelligent as a small acacia tree.

Although to be fair, those responsible for awarding her damages are perhaps more culpable. I wonder how much they made out of this?



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Did McDonalds cause her to spill this hot drink on her lap?

Maybe she should have sued herself?

But the point remains: this case should have been rejected straight away - it has cost every single one of us a great deal of money in increased insurance premiums and increases costs of goods (to pay for increased insurance premiums). Over 20 years we are all thousands of dollars worth off. All 7 billion of us.

Except for some lawyers who have made billions out of it and subsequent cases .....



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I am pretty sure I heard about this case. The reason she won and was awarded a huge chunk of money, is because the water was way hotter than it was supposed to be. If the water was set to the proper temperature, it would have only caused minor burns, instead of the nasty ones she did get.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Someone just posted a similar thread, and I'll post in this thread what I posted in that one.

The national narrative immediately went to a dumbass customer and an idiotic jury.

The fact is, McDonalds found that ultra-hot coffee led to less refills. This led them to purposely keep their coffee at something like 165 degrees, directly or indirectly deterring customers from coming back for more.
This is much hotter than any reasonable person would expect their food product to be.
They had been sued over it in the past and settled, arguing as any business would, that these settlements cost less than changing their practice.
McDonalds was slapped down by the jury for serving a willfully neglectful product, and once you know the whole story, it is pretty hard to argue that they were wrong.

Here is a good summary:
McDonalds coffee and the Liebeck lawsuit




*McDonalds required their coffee kept at 185 degrees Fahrenheit, plus or minus 5 degrees, significantly higher than other establishments. [Coffee is usually served at 135 to 140 degrees]
*An expert testified that 180 degree liquids will cause full thickness burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
*McDonalds knew before this accident that burn hazards exist with any foods served above 140 degrees.
*McDonalds knew that its coffee would burn drinkers at the temperature they served it.
*McDonalds research showed that customers consumed coffee immediately while driving.
*McDonalds knew of over 700 people burned by its coffee, including many third-degree burns similar to Ms. Liebeck's.
*McDonalds had received previous requests from consumers and safety organizations to lower their coffee temperature.




Evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee so hot to save money. This let them get away with a cheaper grade of coffee and cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonalds executives testified that they thought it would be cheaper to pay claims and worker's compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee versus making any of these changes.

edit on 24-10-2013 by demonhauntedworld because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2013 by demonhauntedworld because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2013 by demonhauntedworld because: tryin' to get url to look right



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

AndyMayhew
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


I've always thought the woman concerned should have been counter sued for bringing the human race into dispute. Her actions finally proved that humans are not quite as intelligent as a small acacia tree.

Although to be fair, those responsible for awarding her damages are perhaps more culpable. I wonder how much they made out of this?


Amen!



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Coffee should be brewed between 160-200 degrees.

Only a goof would put hot coffee between their legs (especially cardboard cups), she was just looking to get paid.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


Oh no! Poor McDonald's that was taken for millions! Sheesh, give me a break. However, let me highlight the fact that the woman won not because she spilled her coffee, but because McDonald's served coffee hot enough to damage flesh upon touch.

She also didn't get millions, she got a little over 500k.

Want to see what 80's McDonald's coffee was able to do to human skin? Check this picture out: Link

And that's why she won. She wasn't a money grubbing old woman.

Of course, never let something go to waste. So why not protect big businesses and make it so people with a legitimate claim gets screwed? Now don't get me wrong, I'm totally against the sue happy culture we once had, and still have. (I saw a woman want to sue a guy because he "farted" on her...) But this is to protect big businesses from individuals in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   
I don't know about any of you guys, but I have had coffee spilt on me, both homebrewed, and bought coffee. Never once did it cause me injury, certainly not serious injury. Sunburns were worse really. Hot beverages are supposed to be hot, yes. But not hot enough to cause significant injuries.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

thesaneone

she was just looking to get paid.


That is not correct and shows you haven't researched the case any further than what you've heard from various gossip circles. How can I possibly say such a thing and prove it??

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[13] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan

Here are her injuries:
picture

So, you're telling me that this woman who suffered these burns from their coffee, who in your opinion was "Just looking to get paid!" actually went through all this just to ask for compensation equal to her medical bills and loss of income??

That's just dumb. She wasn't going to make any money off of it. It was McD's that tried to ignore her that made it go to court in the first place and once presented with the facts and the truth, she was awarded her victory.



posted on Oct, 26 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Auricom
reply to post by SadistNocturne
 


Oh no! Poor McDonald's that was taken for millions! Sheesh, give me a break. However, let me highlight the fact that the woman won not because she spilled her coffee, but because McDonald's served coffee hot enough to damage flesh upon touch.

She also didn't get millions, she got a little over 500k.

Want to see what 80's McDonald's coffee was able to do to human skin? Check this picture out: Link

And that's why she won. She wasn't a money grubbing old woman.

Of course, never let something go to waste. So why not protect big businesses and make it so people with a legitimate claim gets screwed? Now don't get me wrong, I'm totally against the sue happy culture we once had, and still have. (I saw a woman want to sue a guy because he "farted" on her...) But this is to protect big businesses from individuals in my opinion.



I've seen the photos. I've had freshly brewed exceedingly hot coffee spilled on me. Particularly Starbucks, which is brewed to 200 degrees, and then allowed to cool to the point of being about somewhere between 175 and 185 degrees. It hurts, and it can leave second degree burns.

I for one, HATE anything but the hottest coffee possible. Cold coffee, even fifteen minutes, is disgusting. This means I know "hey, this is some hot stuff I've got cradled here...be careful".

What happened to her was horrible. I admit that. But, I do not for one moment believe that she was unaware of the coffee's actual temperature. If she was using one of the older style, non-styrofoam cups, which did precious little to prevent heat from escaping from them, and had it between her thighs...she was PERFECTLY well aware of how hot that damned coffee was. When she lifted it by the lid, well, you know what, certain things happen. I cannot BEGIN to tell you the times I've had BATHS of freshly brewed coffee poured on me as a waiter because someone was screwing around or I wasn't handling the caraffe properly.

Now, maybe her decision was addled by her age. Perhaps she made a very bad mistake. But the point that I am making, and that I stand by, is that she knew how hot the coffee was. She knew the way she was handling the cup wasn't the best idea.




top topics



 
1

log in

join