Liebeck's burns were that bad! While I agree something needs to done about frivolous lawsuits... Lets face it there are people that make a living suing other people. If I has seen those pictures of Liebeck's burns beforehand and had known Mcdonalds had 700 complaints about temperature before. I would have had a whole different take on this. It's still stupid to put coffee between your legs, but on the other hand coffee should not be consumed at 190 degrees.
I think she was a lot more to blame than they make her appear to be. And apparently the jury decided McDonald's was 80% responsible and she was 20%.
She ordered hot coffee, she took it, put it in between her legs, tried to take the lid off to put cream/sugar in it and spilled it all over herself. Her actions were directly responsible for her burns. McDonald's excessive temperatures were secondary to her actions.
If it was too hot for her, she wouldn't have even been drinking it in the car yet, so why did she need to put the cream/sugar in it in the parking lot? How about leaving it in the paper cup holder thing and waiting until you get home before you start opening it? If I picked up a cup that felt too hot in my hands, I would put it down and let it cool off before even thinking of picking it up again, let alone drinking it, let alone taking off the lid.
If you have to put the stuff in it as soon as possible in the parking lot, how about holding the cup with one hand and taking the lid off with the other? Between your legs is not the place to put a flimsy paper/plastic cup that you just removed the lid off of. It's not even a good idea to do that with a cold beverage if you don't want it spilled all over you, but especially not hot coffee.
Also, I thought they were even dumber the more they explained what "actually happened" saying that she was a passenger and not the driver, and they were parked, which, to me, is even worse since a passenger has their hands free. At least if it was the driver, it's more reasonable that they would put it between their legs while they put their hands on the wheel. And the nephew saying things like "As you can see, my car doesn't have cup holders" Well how is that McDonald's fault? And why is "between the legs" the first substitute for a cup holder? Why didn't she sue her nephew for having a car without cup holders?
I originally thought the case was that she took the cup and the lid was loose or something and she put it between her legs and clenched them as she was driving causing the lid to pop off and her to spill it all over herself. Which is still her fault, but also a defect in the cup. But as they explained what actually happened, I thought it was more and more her fault.
I didn't know there were 700 complaints about the temperature before, but think about how many people buy coffee and how many McDonalds restaurants there are. There are probably 10 times as many people that enjoy their coffee really hot or maybe they buy it and then drive to work/home and consume it there so when they get to their destination it is at a reasonable temperature. Also, how many of those 700 complaints involved people with coffee between their legs taking the lid off in a car? So if there were 700 different complaints as well as millions of people not complaining, then how is her spilling coffee on herself 80% McDonalds' fault? Sure, the burns wouldn't be as bad if the coffee was cooler, but there wouldn't be any burns if she was more careful.
But just because some lawsuits are frivolous doesn't mean that all should be limited. There are cases where large sums of money are justifiable to both compensate the victims as well as punish the company when they deserve it. And if you take away the ability to do that, the justified complainants get screwed because of the frivolous ones.
reply
share
Roadghost69
13 years ago
SBL84, I see your points and can find agreement with all of them. With that being said, Liebeck was 79 when this happened I can see where she would put the coffee between her legs (never a good idea!) to get leverage. Older people with arthritis probably have a hard time holding coffee in one hand and taking the lid off with the other as you mentioned above. Where would that lady have set the coffee, to tear open the sugar, and peel back the cover on the cream with one hand?
I work at a hospital and can tell you an elderly persons hand's don't work very well and you probably see this yourself. We get elderly patients that don't take their medication because they can't open the bottles and some even have trouble with blister packs! Did you ever see an elderly person try to pull a credit card out of their wallet? My own mother is 69 and can have a hard time with certain packages. It's like the elderly lose coordination or something. As we get older we almost seem to revert back to being an infant. What if this happened to a six year old child (some kids drink coffee)? Do you think the settlement would have been any different? I guess an easy solution to the "Liebeck spill" would of been to have her nephew add in the sugar and cream.
I will tell you a pet peeve of mine though... is the packaging on a CD!!! I bet many people have cut their hand or hands trying to remove that damn cellophane seal. LOL!!
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
Roadghost69
13 years ago
brutony, I have to admit I'm old school and still pay for my music! I just wish I still had my records. Yeah, I hate when they put that tape on three sides if the DVD.
I also hate when you get that hard plastic packaging that's bonded together (like the packaging for ink cartridges) and you have to cut that open.
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
Andstric23
13 years ago
The thing about the Liebeck case that's pretty interesting and mostly overlooked by everyone is that she actually contacted McDonald's after the incident and didn't want to go to court and just asked if they would be able to pay her medical bills which were pretty small compared to what the court awarded later. Also, there had been up to a hundred or more cases before the Liebeck case that dealt with the extreme temperatures of the coffee and this information had been disclosed to McDonald's corporate but they willfully ignored this information...The case wasn't about spilling hot coffee accidentally, Liebeck even admitted in the beginning of the case she spilled the coffee herself,that it was her fault, it was about consumer safety and the willful disregard for consumer safety by corporate interests...... It's all in the book Distorting the Law which I think actually does a better job than this documentary explaining why the tort reform movement is one of the most dangerous to the element of justice in this day and age.
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
Andstric23
13 years ago
Well actually most of what you just said is completely false. The common misconception is that any old average American can sue a large company, but the truth is most of these types of cases get thrown out before they go to trial and the rate of victory for a plaintiff is roughly something like 5%, meaning they hardly win ever. The major problem is that the narrative of tort reform is backed by moneyed and corporate interest more so than a view that there's an endemic problem in the legal system, it's simply put forward in these reductive arguments to convince average Americans that somehow multi-billion dollar corporations are being ripped off, which simply isn't true. Also, Liebeck really did not end up with that much money at after all was said and done, she was essentially left with 160,000 in compensatory damages out of the original 2.7 million in punitive damages that was awarded. They deducted 40,000 out of her compensatory damages of 200,000 for pain and rehabiliation because the jury held her 20 percent responsible for the accident. The 2.7 million was seen by editorialist as an arbitrary number but it amounted to what McDonald's restaurant make in two days nationwide. The scientific evidence was overwhelming and most jurors on the trial reported that before they heard the case they thought it was a waste of time, having a predisposition towards individual responsibility which is touted by tort reformist, but after the scientific evidence was shown basically that skin begins to burn at 180 degrees and above that it becomes extremely serious convinced them that the injuries sustained and the level of disregard by MacDonald's was bad enough to merit damages in that amount.
On a broader level the reason tort reform is dangerous because it's shifting the narrative of responsibility on to the consumer instead of holding the producers and corporations accountable for their actions when they create defective and dangerous products.
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
Andstric23
13 years ago
I guess this is what I get for arguing with a 14 year old on IMDB.
reply
share
SBL84
13 years ago
With that being said, Liebeck was 79 when this happened I can see where she would put the coffee between her legs (never a good idea!) to get leverage. Older people with arthritis probably have a hard time holding coffee in one hand and taking the lid off with the other as you mentioned above. Where would that lady have set the coffee, to tear open the sugar, and peel back the cover on the cream with one hand?
Well, you also have to consider how much her family played up her dexterity. Remember, they said she isn't the kind of person that spills things, drops things, or knocks them over, and she usually had a steady hand, to try and explain why she was doing it herself and the way she was doing it.
If they said she had arthritis, Parkinson's, or some other kind of problem that resulted in why she chose to use her legs, it would make slightly more sense to why she did it, but it would also bring up other questions like why she was trying to do it herself with disabilities like those.
Also, her nephew was sitting right next to her. She could have easily said "Honey, can you open these cream/sugar packets?" or "Could you hold my cup while I put the cream/sugar in?" Like the nephew said, they pulled into a parking spot to get situated. What was he doing while she was fumbling with the lid on the cup between her legs? So it's not like she was even doing this while they were moving and he had to keep his attention on the road and hands on the wheel. I've helped my grandmother on many occasions opening small packets or containers because her hands aren't very dexterous. If I saw her putting a hot cup of coffee between her legs I would instantly say something to try and stop her from taking the lid off.
There were plenty of things she could have done besides put it between her legs.
That's why I think it was more her fault than McDonald's. Even if the coffee was at a temperature deemed "reasonable" she still would have been burned when she spilled it on herself. Of course it wouldn't be as severe, but her act is the one that primarily led to her injuries.
reply
share
Roadghost69
13 years ago
SBL84, I have to say, if I was The Mcdonald's Corporation I would have covered the cost of what ever her insurance did not cover for her injuries and this should have been done in private and not make media circus out of this. According to this documentary this is what Mrs. Liebeck wanted in the first place. It was also a great idea that Mcdonald's has lowered the temperature of coffee.
I am not a coffee drinker myself. I can't stand the taste of it. I like the smell of it.... but that's it. I could never understand why anyone can swallow anything that hot, even tea! I do love soup though.
I can remember as a kid every Sunday in our house was Dunkin Donuts day and my father would always order coffee and one dozen donuts and I would have to hold the coffee all the way home. This is the 1970's so there was no cup holders in cars. My dad had a stick shift car and that coffee would leak out and burn this crap out of my hands. Nothing I could not handle... but it still hurt. I guess that's why I hate coffee.
reply
share
SBL84
13 years ago
SBL84, I have to say, if I was The Mcdonald's Corporation I would have covered the cost of what ever her insurance did not cover for her injuries and this should have been done in private and not make media circus out of this. According to this documentary this is what Mrs. Liebeck wanted in the first place. It was also a great idea that Mcdonald's has lowered the temperature of coffee.
Oh, I agree completely. That would have definitely been the smart thing to do. Her medical bills weren't even that much in comparison. I think something like $20,000 or so. The excessive temperature definitely was their fault, and if it was an average temperature she probably would have had barely any medical bills at all, so taking some responsibility, they should have settled for that.
They pay for the medical bills for their responsibility in the temperature, she accepts the lasting physical/mental effects because of her own negligence.
But then because McDonald's didn't want to settle, they got the lawyers involved who wanted to make something much bigger out of it and made it a multi-million dollar punitive damage lawsuit.
They should have just accepted the $20k settlement, and maybe the Liebecks could put a provision in there to lower the temperature in the future or something like McDonald's ended up doing anyway. Everybody wins.
reply
share
HwajangshilAgashi
11 years ago
But if McDonald's wasn't primarily responsible, why should they pay even for her medical bills? If someone slips in a hotel bathtub and breaks their arm, is the hotel responsible - even just for the medical bills - or was it just an unfortunate accident?
That being said, the government should pick up her - and every other American citizen's - medical bills. There's no excuse for millions of people being forced to decide between receiving medical treatment or avoiding bankruptcy and possibly dying due to these health issues.
Despite what the documentary was saying, the temperature of the coffee wasn't excessive. Most people making themselves coffee at home would bring it to the same, if not an even higher, temperature.
They very, very briefly mentioned the design of the lids, and if that was the case, then I think she would have had a real case. But the way they only touched on it so briefly leads me to believe it was just another excuse they were throwing in the pot.
reply
share
Eve_of_Destruction
12 years ago
Liebeck was 79 when this happened I can see where she would put the coffee between her legs (never a good idea!) to get leverage. Older people with arthritis probably have a hard time holding coffee in one hand and taking the lid off with the other as you mentioned above. Where would that lady have set the coffee, to tear open the sugar, and peel back the cover on the cream with one hand?
Um, should this woman be driving if she can't figure out how to handle a hot beverage properly? If she wasn't driving, then why the need to put it between her legs? If life is that difficult for her she needs to stay at home out of harms way and possibly get a nurse to watch over her. Just saying, not trying to be mean, just realistic.
EDIT I just read on another thread that she wasn't driving. They were parked. Now I really don't get the need for her putting it between her legs. She should know after 79 years of life that this is not a good idea with any beverage. OR whomever was with her should no she can't be trusted with these sort of things, and take her inside to eat! Why is a cute little older lady being given food from a drive thru in a parked car, get out of the damn car and take this poor thing inside!
mulder it's me
http://www.alienware.com
reply
share
HannahWhitney525
12 years ago
I honestly think no one expects to get seriously hurt from mcdonalds. I mean, How hot was that coffee??
reply
share
sfrsez
8 years ago
exactly. in fact , like most people,and especially the elderly, she is a spazz andlazy. why not get out of the car and place the cup on the hood. than it only spills on the car.
reply
share
sfrsez
8 years ago
exactly. in fact , like most people,and especially the elderly, she is a spazz andlazy. why not get out of the car and place the cup on the hood. than it only spills on the car.
reply
share
sfrsez
8 years ago
exactly. in fact , like most people,and especially the elderly, she is a spazz andlazy. why not get out of the car and place the cup on the hood. than it only spills on the car.
reply
share
sfrsez
8 years ago
exactly. in fact , like most people,and especially the elderly, she is a spazz andlazy. why not get out of the car and place the cup on the hood. than it only spills on the car.
reply
share
Burk48917 (11028)
9 months ago
You don't expect it to be so hot it will hurt you. And it shouldn't have been that hot, that's the point.
reply
share