Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:53:59 AM
Thanks for the details, MrPeabody. Your comment on why we know this as the "woman who sued..." is right on. America's litigious nature is often used as a source of humor, but unless you know something to be trivial, you shouldn`t presume that`s all it is.
Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:45:42 AM
Unfortunately I'm pressed for time, and can`t elaborate further atm, but if you search for McDonalds Coffee burn, you will find plenty of sites that discuss the real facts and the politics behind it.
You could go to http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/. A lawyer made a documentary on this case as well as a few other similar cases and discuses why the corporations and insurance industry hide the details in order push the agenda of tort reform.
So wouldn't the sensible action to take in this case be to force McDonald`s to serve sensibly temperate beverages as opposed to scolding hot ones?
You would think so. At least in this case, it was a civil lawsuit not a criminal suit, so the only thing McDs would be forced to do is pay the injured party. If I recall correctly, she just wanted McDs to pay her medical bills, but they only offered her something like $1000. That is why she sued them, and it was the jury who awarded her $2.7 million in damages. The $2.7 mil was later reduced to something like $400,000 in appeals.
The reason people don`t know the facts of this case is that the injured woman was not allowed to talk about the case as a condition of the settlement, but McDs could talk about it. That is why it is known as the woman who sued over hot coffee, and not the woman who received severe 3rd degree burns.
So wouldn't the sensible action to take in this case be to force McDonald`s to serve sensibly temperate beverages as opposed to scolding hot ones? Besides, reading the warning isn`t going to make any difference to someone bumping in to you and causing a spill by accident. The law should be there to protect the consumer, not the company.
However, I think common-sense in general has been completely disregarded. Sure, these warning labels aren`t exactly offensive and most of us ignore them but I do sometimes feel the grind of living in a nanny state when sensible people aren`t allowed to partake in sensible activities because the stupid minority can`t control themselves.