Forums | MacLife

Making the plaintiff fork over some cash would help to stiffle these freakin' lawsuits.

Well, they do need to hire a lawyer themselves, so that's a little deterrent.  I wish McD's could use the plantiff class or their lawyers for defamation though.

Well, they do need to hire a lawyer themselves, so that's a little deterrent.  I wish McD's could use the plantiff class or their lawyers for defamation though.

Don't lawyers usually take cases like this and agree to payment only if they win?

Cool. . . a sensible decision.

I still don't believe the coffee at that specific McDonald's was too hot. I ate at that specific McDonalds for years, and the coffee was never too hot. The drive-through is at the top of a hill.

I seriously doubt that the car wasn't moving, and I seriously doubt that the coffee was too hot. Someone in my family spilled coffee all over themself, and had massive burns and had to get skin grafts.

Spilling hot coffee on you will burn you.

What would really stop a lot of these nonsense lawsuits would be to make the plaintiffs lawyer pay the defendants legal fees in cases where the judge determines the suit is frivolous.

A lot of things can stop lawsuits, but since nonsensical lawsuits are subjectively nonsensical trying to stop them would be a very bad idea.

I disagree. Here in Canada, we have a "loser pays" system. The loser of a lawsuit has to pay the legal fees of the side that wins. As a result, we have far fewer civil lawsuits than the U.S., and far many more out-of-court settlements.

Some have argued that the system restricts access to the legal system for some folks. Maybe so. But overall, North American societies are WAY over-lawyered. Anything that diminishes the role of lawyers in the world is, in my humble opinion, a fine measure indeed.

A lot of things can stop lawsuits, but since nonsensical lawsuits are subjectively nonsensical trying to stop them would be a very bad idea.

I disagree. Here in Canada, we have a "loser pays" system. The loser of a lawsuit has to pay the legal fees of the side that wins. As a result, we have far fewer civil lawsuits than the U.S., and far many more out-of-court settlements.

Some have argued that the system restricts access to the legal system for some folks. Maybe so. But overall, North American societies are WAY over-lawyered. Anything that diminishes the role of lawyers in the world is, in my humble opinion, a fine measure indeed.

Wish they did that here, the lawsuit I had to go through cost me almost $2000, wish the millionaire bastards would of had to pay it... instead of me... because they lost...

Cyberpawz

One must be huge in order to claim an obesity suit. The waste line on that suit alone must be like what 10 yards? What about the tie? Would it be a wide tie or a thin tie? How about a bow tie? Ha. Imagine. A bow tie on an obesity suit. No one would throw that out. It would be a keeper.

The most widely circulated recent anecdote purportedly demonstrating that the tort system is out of control was the jury award of $2.9-million to a woman who was burned by the coffee she bought at McDonald's. The story has been the butt of jokes by the Tonight Show's Jay Leno, but the facts suggest that justice was served.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader described the relevant facts in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in February 1995. What follows are excerpts from that testimony:

"In February 1992, while sitting in a non moving car, 80 year old Sheila Liebeck suffered third degree burns over six percent of her body, including her genital and groin areas, after a cup of hot coffee she was holding spilled into her lap. As a result, she was hospitalized for 8 days and underwent skin grafting. Ms. Liebeck sought to settle her claim for a mere $20,000 but McDonald's refused."

"During extensive discovery Ms. Liebeck's attorney discovered that more than 700 claims had been filed against McDonald's by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. In addition, McDonald's admitted that it kept its coffee at temperatures almost 40 degrees hotter than most food establishments. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Ms. Liebeck 20 percent at fault for the spill. The jury also awarded Ms. Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, the equivalent of 2 day's of McDonald's coffee sales. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- three times the compensatory damages."

"Notwithstanding the hysteria surrounding the McDonald's coffee case, the facts demonstrate that punitive damage awards are not awarded arbitrarily or without just cause, and that awards are subject to review and reduction by trial judges."

FACTS:

The now infamous case of a lawsuit against the McDonald's Corporation for serving dangerously hot coffee generated an extraordinary amount of public outcry. Every time I question potential jury members before a trial, I always hear the same thing. The potential jurors all say that the civil justice system is out of control and the refer to the McDonald's case. Then when I question them as to what they really know about the case, again, I always hear the same thing. All they know is that a jury awarded $2.7 million in damages to some little old lady who spilt coffee on herself while driving away from McDonald's drive-through line. Unfortunately, just about none of this is what happened. Here are the facts:

Fact #1 - For years McDonalds served their coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast-food restaurants. In this way, they could get more coffee per pound of beans and increase their profits by a few cents per cup.

Fact #2 - McDonald's coffee was so hot that, if spilled, it could cause third degree burns, which would burn through skin and down to the muscle in less than three seconds.

Fact #3 - McDonald's has had over 700 previous claims related to serious burns from their coffee to their customers, many of whom had been injured in the genital area, inner thighs, and buttocks areas. Yet, McDonald's refused to lower the temperature of their coffee.

Fact #4 - The injured (burned) plaintiff in this case, 79 year old Stella Lieback, was not driving her car. She was seated as the passenger in her grandson's parked car, holding the coffee cup between her legs while removing the plastic lid. The cup tipped over and poured the scalding hot coffee into her lap causing third degree burns.

Fact #5 - Mrs. Lieback required eight days of hospitalization and multiple surgeries, including skin grafts as a result of being scalded by McDonald's coffee.

Fact #6 - Mrs. Lieback only took legal action against McDonald's after they refused to reimburse her for her medical expenses.

Fact #7 - The jury was so outraged at the arrogance and callousness of McDonald's that they awarded punitive damages, to punish McDonald's and to deter McDonald's from such conduct in the future. They awarded $2.7 million.

Fact #8 - The day after the verdict, McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee.

Fact #9 - The trial judge thought the verdict was too high and reduced the verdict to about $400,000 at McDonald's request. (This is one fact that the insurance lawyers and McDonald's corporate lawyers never mention.)

Now you've got the facts! The system works just fine. McDonald's got the message

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/universa … rn/73.html

<snip>

I've heard that before. I just trust my first-hand experience more than any news article.

Apparently, McDonalds had settled cases concerning coffee by amounts of up to $500,000.  This 81-year-old woman asked initially for $800.