Lady Falls in Fountain - Suing for an Apology

[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']So you're saying the she sued because McDonald's hot coffee is hot and can cause burns? Yup, sounds about right, totally misrepresented.[/QUOTE]

no I am saying that it was arguably unnecessarily hot, which made it take less time to cause 3rd degree burns. Mcdonald's changed the temperature of the coffee after the incident, which made it arguably safer for all consumers. Pretty much everyone I have ever talked to about this case didn't know much about the facts. Obviously, you can still disagree with the verdict, but most people don't realize the extent of her injuries or the fact that the coffee in question was arguably hotter than it needed to be.
 
[quote name='caltab']This is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood legal cases of all time and is often used to degrade our profession. I would encourage anyone to actually read the facts of the case. The women received 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized for several days, followed by a few years of medical treatment. From what I've read she attempted to settle for only her actual medical losses, which mcdonalds refused- so she got an attorney. There was evidence introduced indicating Mcdonalds may have kept there coffee hotter than industry standards, which made it take less time to receive burns. There were also several other past instances of accidents. After the verdict, Mcdonals lowered the temperature of the coffee.[/QUOTE]

Don't bother, people are going to hate the legal system and lawyers no matter what. The saddest part is the courts and legal system protect an individual's rights much more than the either executive or legislative branch ever does. Call it misinterpretation or just a basic ignorance of civics but at the end of the day people's opinions of lawyers just won't change.

I had a discussion with my girlfriend the other day about torts and her perception of the legal system only being a way for people to get paid with frivolous lawsuits. Then I proceeded to ask her how an individual's rights are protected when the person who wronged them committed an act which wasn't criminal in nature. People never think of it that way, they only see the courts as being a way for lawyers to get rich (even though most aren't) not as an opportunity for someone to have their rights protected.

[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']So you're saying the she sued because McDonald's hot coffee is hot and can cause burns? Yup, sounds about right, totally misrepresented.[/QUOTE]

No, what he's saying is that coffee should never be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and hospitalization. McDonalds wasn't following the industry standard for the temperature of coffee, plain and simple.
 
[quote name='caltab']no I am saying that it was arguably unnecessarily hot, which made it take less time to cause 3rd degree burns. Mcdonald's changed the temperature of the coffee after the incident, which made it arguably safer for all consumers.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure lawyers pat themselves on the back all day long as they come up with phrases like 'arguably unncessarily hot' but I assure you that you sound like assholes to the rest of us.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']I'm sure lawyers pat themselves on the back all day long as they come up with phrases like 'arguably unncessarily hot' but I assure you that you sound like assholes to the rest of us.[/QUOTE]

First of all, I am not a Tort lawyer. But, I am using "arguably" because I don't think the issue is very cut and try and that reasonable people could disagree about whether making coffee hotter than industry standards, that you should know is being used by people driving cars, creates an unnecessary risk. Not all coffee causes third degree burns in a matter of seconds. I don't think you are wrong to think that it's still the woman's own problem, I am just suggesting people should read the facts about the case- because its not as ridiculous and cut and dry as they may have thought.
 
[quote name='caltab']First of all, I am not a Tort lawyer. But, I am using "arguably" because I don't think the issue is very cut and try and that reasonable people could disagree about whether making coffee hotter than industry standards, that you should know is being used by people driving cars, creates an unnecessary risk. Not all coffee causes third degree burns in a matter of seconds. I don't think you are wrong to think that it's still the woman's own problem, I am just suggesting people should read the facts about the case- because its not as ridiculous and cut and dry as they may have thought.[/QUOTE]

Well, I think that is where lawyer world and the rest of the world disagree and it's why people dislike lawyers. A lawyer would think it is not cut and dry that a woman who is drinking hot coffee and driving and who spills that coffee on herself and gets burned is not at fault and that maybe the person who sold her that coffee should be sued. The rest of the world thinks that is crazy.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Well, I think that is where lawyer world and the rest of the world disagree and it's why people dislike lawyers. A lawyer would think it is not cut and dry that a woman who is drinking hot coffee and driving and who spills that coffee on herself and gets burned is not at fault and that maybe the person who sold her that coffee should be sued. The rest of the world thinks that is crazy.[/QUOTE]

but you see a lawyer didn't render the verdict- normal people on a jury did.
 
I understand what both sides are going for. Its the old discussion of how far does a person/business need to go to protect themselves from common sense. But you both are wrong when you say the problem isnt the Law itself. Because there is no set line (as there shouldnt) today you loose a lawsuit for attacking a burglar in your own house and the next day you win a large sum of money after suing your husband for "hacking" the computer you both own because he suspected you were cheating.....and you were.


Its the vagueness of law itself because each judge/jury is human and therefor will bring different opinions to the table.


Its just how it goes, people will continue to sue for the dumbest reason because they do have a chance of winning and there is enough less than honorable lawyers who will continue to fight for them. But some of the time they do indeed have a good reason to sue.

Those be the breaks.
 
[quote name='caltab']but you see a lawyer didn't render the verdict- normal people on a jury did.[/QUOTE]

A sad state our legal system is in, isn't it?
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']A sad state our legal system is in, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

It absolutely is sad to let a jury of our peers decide which person's set of facts should prevail. We should let just 1 person do it, I know, we'll call them King...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']It absolutely is sad to let a jury of our peers decide which person's set of facts should prevail. We should let just 1 person do it, I know, we'll call them King...[/QUOTE]


"You can't expect to wield supreme executive power because some watery tart threw a sword at you."
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']No, what he's saying is that coffee should never be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and hospitalization. McDonalds wasn't following the industry standard for the temperature of coffee, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

I understand the point you're making, but let's at least acknowledge the reason this was done. It's not like McDonald's just felt compelled to make their coffee hotter. Surely, customers were complaining that their coffee was "cold" and this caused McDonald's to raise the temperature. For all we know, the same woman who got burned could have been one of the one's complaining. THAT'S the world we live in. Can't please anybody...and when you try, they'll sue you for their own negligence.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']I understand the point you're making, but let's at least acknowledge the reason this was done. It's not like McDonald's just felt compelled to make their coffee hotter. Surely, customers were complaining that their coffee was "cold" and this caused McDonald's to raise the temperature. For all we know, the same woman who got burned could have been one of the one's complaining. THAT'S the world we live in. Can't please anybody...and when you try, they'll sue you for their own negligence.[/QUOTE]

This is absolutely NOT the reason the coffee was hotter than the claimed industry standard(about 40 degrees above than the standard claimed by the attorney for the woman). McDonald's felt it added to the taste and aroma, despite some others in the industry not finding it necessary. Evidence was introduced indicating 700 prior reports of burnings and that McDonald's had given $500,000 in settlements to others before this case. So surely your point is inaccurate to say the least. Again, I implore you to actually read the facts of the case before making statements like this. I don't have a problem with people still believing the women in this case should be viewed as the only one responsible for her very real 3rd degree burns, but at least come to that conclusion based on the facts. The case is Liebeck V. McDonald's.

Also, the Plaintiff in the case was actually found to be contributory negligent in spilling the coffee and had her damages reduced based on that fact. Part of the original damage amount was punitive and meant to be the profits from two days of coffee sales at McD's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Well, I think that is where lawyer world and the rest of the world disagree and it's why people dislike lawyers. A lawyer would think it is not cut and dry that a woman who is drinking hot coffee and driving and who spills that coffee on herself and gets burned is not at fault and that maybe the person who sold her that coffee should be sued. The rest of the world thinks that is crazy.[/QUOTE]

You already have the wrong facts. Plz actually read the wiki on that case.

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49 cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her nephew Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Stella placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin. Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her down to 83 pounds. Two years of medical treatment followed.

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. Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.

The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before Judge Robert H. Scott. During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.) Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, this contradicts the company's own research that showed customers actually intend to consume the coffee while driving to their destination.

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.

A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day. The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
 
There are very valid arguments to think McDonald's should not be held liable- like that coffee is hot and a person assumes risk when drinking it, or that the outfit she was wearing caused the burns to be more severe, or that the the industry standard is actually the temperature McD's was serving coffee at. I really don't have a problem with someone taking those views. I just think a lot people may have jumped to conclusions about the case without informing themselves of the facts.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[/QUOTE]

But...but...but... you mean to tell me when million dollar victories are awarded they don't write a check on the spot?!?! There's some type of process to appeal the award? That can't be the case, that simply can't be true. I refuse to believe it.

Back to our regularly scheduled program. I love punitive damages, the favorite scapegoat of those championing tort reform but the overlooked deterrence in the civil justice system.

You should have bolded this part as well

He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.
Click to expand...

Interesting thing to think about that McDonalds has more important dangers to worry about than their customers being burned by their food.

[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Ok, she wasn't driving. That hardly changes my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Of course not, any evidence to the contrary of your hatred of the legal system is to be disregarded.

Let me ask you a hypothetical. Let's say 20 years down the road you need an important medical procedure you can't afford and your insurance company is refusing to pay for. Its not in violation of criminal law for them deny the claim thus you turn to the civil justice system. You sue and win but not before you've suffered long term effects in their refusal to pay. Your asshole lawyer (as I believe you so eloquently put it) has asked for punitive damages and they're awarded. Are you going to turn those punitive damages down? If you say no, you're lying through your teeth.

The "Mcdonalds coffee lady" spent time in the hospital, had to undergo skin grafts, and will be scarred for the rest of her life. All she wanted in the beginning was for her medical bills to be paid but that was too much for McDonalds. I think a company as wealthy as McDonalds can afford to pay this woman's medical bills. They didn't, she won and it cost them much more. In the future, I'd imagine they will be more willing to settle out of court for medical expenses incurred in the consumption of their food. Suddenly, not just that one woman is benefiting from that judgment but any of us that could be injured by McDonalds.
 
I'm so glad to see somebody came out with a documentary on that (and other cases)

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/25/do_you_know_the_full_story

Just debuted at Sundance.

Mr Unoriginal plz watch that video or read this transcript

AMY GOODMAN: Hot Coffee is the name of this documentary, and it’s based on your mother’s case. Judy, tell us what happened. What day was it? And really explain. We heard your mother in this documentary when she was filmed talking about it. Talk about it yourself.

JUDY LIEBECK: Well, whoever I talk to, they don’t have the right story. So I always ask, "What do you think happened?" What really happened was that my nephew was driving the car, not my mother. They drove into a McDonald’s, got coffee and a meal, drove into the parking lot. There were no cup holders in the car, so my mother steadied the cup between her knees and peeled off the lid. The whole cup collapsed.

The temperature—McDonald’s required that their temperature be held around 187 degrees.

AMY GOODMAN: In a styrofoam cup.

JUDY LIEBECK: In a styrofoam cup. And styrofoam will melt at that temperature. She went to the hospital. We thought, oh, she’s in for observation overnight, no problem. But she was in for eight days. She had third-degree burns. She could not—you could not touch that area. She had to have a sheet held up. She—

AMY GOODMAN: The pictures that are shown in the film are gruesome.

JUDY LIEBECK: They’re very gruesome.

AMY GOODMAN: Her thighs.

JUDY LIEBECK: Yes. She had skin grafts. And the skin—when they started talking about skin grafts, that’s when she became concerned about her money, because she had moved from Tucson to Albuquerque. She wanted to buy a little house. And she thought all of her money would go, because Medicare was only going to pay 80 percent, and so she would have to pay 20 percent. And we started thinking, why is McDonald’s insurance not paying for the medical? I have insurance on my home. If someone comes in and breaks an arm or hurts themselves, I expect my insurance to pay for it. That’s what I’m paying insurance for.

So, we wrote a letter to McDonald’s. Chuck and I wrote a letter to McDonald’s, asking them to cover her medical and to check the temperature on the coffee, because it seemed not reasonable that someone would have this kind of an injury from a cup of coffee. They came back with an offer of—what was at that point $10,000 in medical, they came back with an offer of $800. And we were just appalled. We wrote another letter, hadn’t heard from them, started getting very angry about this whole situation, and contacted a lawyer, searched for a lawyer that had already had a case against McDonald’s. And—

AMY GOODMAN: A similar case? A case where someone was scalded by hot coffee?

JUDY LIEBECK: A similar case, yes. Yes, six years before. And that—

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain the issue of this coffee? I mean, how hot is coffee supposed to be?

JUDY LIEBECK: Well, a normal home brewer should be between 142 and 162. And of course, when you put it into a ceramic cup, the heat is dissipated. A hundred and eighty-seven degrees, you have two to seven seconds before you have a third-degree burn.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you know it was 187 degrees?

JUDY LIEBECK: That was in McDonald’s manual. Coffee was to be held at all of their facilities at that temperature, worldwide. And the reason for that, we believe, is that the higher the temperature on the coffee, the longer the shelf life of the pot of coffee. So it was a business decision to do that. But it causes irreparable damage. At 142 to 162 degrees, you have 25 seconds to get away from a third-degree burn. It’s not going to happen.

AMY GOODMAN: Chuck Allen, talk about McDonald’s response and how it progressed.

CHARLES ALLEN: Well, McDonald’s sent the first letter, and saying this is what we’re going to have. And then, the person that we were working through said, "Please call me." And they said, "Get a lawyer."

And so, then McDonald’s decided that they wanted to go to jury trial. And the reason they did that, because New Mexico, up to that point, had never found positively for the plaintiff in a product liability suit, and that is a product liability suit. The decision is, in product liability, is that the product must be used—be able to be used in the way it was intended at the time of sale, or else there must be enough warning that you should do something differently with it. McDonald’s said, "I want to go here, because it’s never found. I want my line drawn in the sand." And there was two court-appointed mediations that they didn’t come to. They wanted jury trial. They said that they wanted to have—McDonald’s wanted to be at jury to get the proper result, so they would no longer have this issue. This didn’t work out for them. They did go to—

JUDY LIEBECK: Right. Two days—two days before the court case went to trial, there was a mediation. They sent no one to mediation. And our lawyer had said to us, "If they will settle for some amount of money, you know, $50,000 or something like that, would that be acceptable?" And we said, "That would be wonderful. That’s more than—you know, going to pay for the medical and that sort of thing." And he said, "Well, I would give it to your mother, and I would call it a loss, as far as I’m concerned." McDonald’s was not interested in that. They wanted to go to trial.

AMY GOODMAN: And you went to trial.

CHARLES ALLEN: We went to trial.

AMY GOODMAN: And what did you learn about how many times this has happened to people who go to McDonald’s and get coffee?

JUDY LIEBECK: McDonald’s came in with a huge chart with 700 names on it.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, I’m confused. McDonald’s or your lawyer?

CHARLES ALLEN: No, McDonald’s.

JUDY LIEBECK: Other lawyer, their lawyer.

CHARLES ALLEN: Their.

AMY GOODMAN: Their lawyer, not yours.

CHARLES ALLEN: Not ours.

JUDY LIEBECK: Their lawyer. No, their lawyer.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what—why would they say that they had scalded 700 people?

CHARLES ALLEN: The reason—

JUDY LIEBECK: They felt that it was statistically insignificant. And that’s what they said in court.

CHARLES ALLEN: They sell millions of cups of coffee a day. And if you have 700 burns over a period of 10 years, that, to them, is insignificant. The problem was that our lawyer had made a different—had tried a separate case. That name was not on the 700. And so, he was able at that point to bring it into court, saying, "Well, where is the Swick [phon.] case?" It wasn’t there. And so—

AMY GOODMAN: But even 700—I mean, you’re talking about more than a person a week is scalded by coffee made by McDonald’s?

JUDY LIEBECK: It just seemed that they were so arrogant and so—it was almost sociopathic, that they didn’t—they didn’t think there was anything wrong with this.

AMY GOODMAN: So what did the jury decide?

CHARLES ALLEN: The jury was, at the last day, told, "You will consider punitive damages." And when they did that, they said, "Well, what should we do for punitive damages, because obviously there isn’t culpability here?" The first thing they decided was that there was a 20 percent problem that Stella actually spilled the coffee on herself.

JUDY LIEBECK: Twenty-five percent. They found that it was 25 percent her fault.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to—OK, and so, how much?

CHARLES ALLEN: And so, that was a twenty—and then they had to reduce that. But then they said, "Punitive damages, we want two or seven days of coffee sales." They chose the two days of coffee sales of only coffee in McDonalds. Those two days happened to be the $2.7 million.

JUDY LIEBECK: The judge was so incensed with what had gone on with McDonald’s that he directed the jury to consider punitive damages.

AMY GOODMAN: In this documentary, one of the jurors was interviewed, in Hot Coffee.

CHARLES ALLEN: Yes.

JUDY LIEBECK: Mm-hmm. Betty Farnham.

AMY GOODMAN: What did she say?

CHARLES ALLEN: Yeah. She was incensed.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, there was a very different reaction all over this country. I want to play again what we played in the billboard. I mean, you had every comic making fun.

CHARLES ALLEN: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: Made famous on Seinfeld.

JUDY LIEBECK: Still.

AMY GOODMAN: On Letterman.

JUDY LIEBECK: Still. Toby Keith has a song out right now called the "American Ride." And it says, "Spill a cup of coffee, make a million dollars."

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to the clip.

CRAIG FERGUSON: Every minute they waste on this frivolous lawsuit, they’re not able to waste on other frivolous lawsuits, like, "Ooh, my coffee was too hot!" It’s coffee!

MAN ON THE STREET 3: The woman, she purchased the coffee, and she spilled it on herself. I mean, it wasn’t like the McDonald’s employee took the coffee, threw it on her. Now, that, in itself, then she would have had a lawsuit.

WOMAN ON THE STREET 2: It’s just people just are greedy and want money, and they’ll do anything to get it.

AMY GOODMAN: Just some of the reaction. Final comments for Judy and Chuck Allen, the final decision?

CHARLES ALLEN: In the final decision, 30 days later, we went back into court with McDonald’s asking for the judgment to be thrown out because of a runaway jury. The judge said, "You came into court. You showed what you were. And we were incensed by that, essentially." But he did say, "You thought you saw a light at the end of a tunnel. You did not know it was attached to a train." His words. And then he turned to us and said, "I have the authority to reduce this amount of punitive damage to three times compensatory, and I am exercising that." And so, that’s what he did. So when we walked out of court, the $2.7 million had been reduced to three times compensatory, and then that was the end of the case.

AMY GOODMAN: And how much, in the end, did you get?

CHARLES ALLEN: In the end was the amount, basically. It was an undisclosed amount, but it was in that neighborhood.

AMY GOODMAN: Your mother, a strong woman before this cup of coffee?

JUDY LIEBECK: Oh, the week before this happened, she dug out a palm tree in Tucson, she painted a ceiling. A very, very, very strong woman.

AMY GOODMAN: Afterwards?

JUDY LIEBECK: After this happened, she never got to a point where she could—if her little dachshund dug a hole in her stones in the backyard, she couldn’t take a rake—and it was very difficult for her to even cover that up. So she never regained the quality of life she had before.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to look at several different cases that are highlighted in the film, that is named for the case of your mother, called Hot Coffee, a very different story than one most people know in this country.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RedvsBlue'] Of course not, any evidence to the contrary of your hatred of the legal system is to be disregarded.[/QUOTE]

Nor would anything change your mind. Or anyone else in the vs. forum. I sometimes forget things like this and post here. I'm sure we both have better things to do with our time. If it makes you feel better: you win.
 
facts pshhhhhh who needs those. i just go off of what i heard and my gut feeling. and my gut is telling me fuck that old lady who got millions of dollars for spilling coffee on herself while driving. i mean it's coffee, it is suppose to be hot. if you have a problem with it, maybe you should take some personal responsibility and buy a coke or something instead of expecting mcdonalds to serve lukewarm coffee. (but i bet that old bitch would have sued for the ice cubes being too cold and causing her discomfort when she inevitability spilled it all over herself)

emotsmugx.gif
 
Stern played an audio interview of this woman. She said it would had been funny if it was someone else who fell into the fountain. Because it was her however, it was not funny and she needs compensation for it. In court they need to play that interview and ask why she feels it would be ok to laugh at someone in that situation but expects people not to laugh at her now.

She also calls her husband "daddy", maybe daddy needs to take her phone away.
 
[quote name='caltab']This is one of the most misrepresented and misunderstood legal cases of all time and is often used to degrade our profession. I would encourage anyone to actually read the facts of the case. The women received 3rd degree burns and was hospitalized for several days, followed by a few years of medical treatment. From what I've read she attempted to settle for only her actual medical losses, which mcdonalds refused- so she got an attorney. There was evidence introduced indicating Mcdonalds may have kept there coffee hotter than industry standards, which made it take less time to receive burns. There were also several other past instances of accidents. After the verdict, Mcdonals lowered the temperature of the coffee.[/QUOTE]

+1
I took a law and COMM class during summer school my senior year of college and our teacher had a real lawyer come in that was familiar with this case. He told us facts that I never knew about the case like her trip to the hospital and how hot the coffee really was. Before that I honestly thought she was screwing the system over. If you do the research on it, you'll see she was pretty justified in her case.
 
[quote name='kburns10']+1
I took a law and COMM class during summer school my senior year of college and our teacher had a real lawyer come in that was familiar with this case. He told us facts that I never knew about the case like her trip to the hospital and how hot the coffee really was. Before that I honestly thought she was screwing the system over. If you do the research on it, you'll see she was pretty justified in her case.[/QUOTE]

She put a hot coffee cup between her knees while in a car, then pulled the lid off of the cup which in turn collapsed. The pressure of her knees trying to hold the cup caused the cup to collapse and her getting burned. Had she held the cup in her hand she would not have been burned.

I am going to sue kitchen aid, I picked up a knife by the blade and I got cut. They need to dull the blade so that when I pick it up by the blade I won't get cut.
 
[quote name='iwannadie']She put a hot coffee cup between her knees while in a car, then pulled the lid off of the cup which in turn collapsed. The pressure of her knees trying to hold the cup caused the cup to collapse and her getting burned. Had she held the cup in her hand she would not have been burned.

I am going to sue kitchen aid, I picked up a knife by the blade and I got cut. They need to dull the blade so that when I pick it up by the blade I won't get cut.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying she deserved to win or didn't bring this whole thing on herself. But McDonalds was keeping their coffee hotter than the settings set out by corporate that all McDonalds are to follow. This location caused her to have serious medical issues from the burns. It's one thing to burn yourself spilling coffee on yourself. It's another to end up burning yourself so bad that you mess your lower area up permanently. She's still an idiot and should have been smarter. But because this McDonalds was not following protocol she has and had a case against them.
 
[quote name='kburns10']I'm not saying she deserved to win or didn't bring this whole thing on herself. But McDonalds was keeping their coffee hotter than the settings set out by corporate that all McDonalds are to follow. This location caused her to have serious medical issues from the burns. It's one thing to burn yourself spilling coffee on yourself. It's another to end up burning yourself so bad that you mess your lower area up permanently. She's still an idiot and should have been smarter. But because this McDonalds was not following protocol she has and had a case against them.[/QUOTE]

According to the above post by RedvsBlue, the coffee temp was set at a corporate level. It had nothing to do with the individual restaurant.

I don't think there is any law dictating what temperature coffee has to be sold at either.

Your justification that the coffee was too hot and she deserves money is no difference than my knife being too sharp comparison, I think.
 
[quote name='iwannadie']According to the above post by RedvsBlue, the coffee temp was set at a corporate level. It had nothing to do with the individual restaurant.

I don't think there is any law dictating what temperature coffee has to be sold at either.

Your justification that the coffee was too hot and she deserves money is no difference than my knife being too sharp comparison, I think.[/QUOTE]

The research I found showed this particular location had their coffee set at a higher level than corporate sets. But even the lawyer who came to talk to my class said no one could really know all of the facts except the lawyers involved in the case. I agree that if the coffee was not higher than corporate's level, it is no different than your knife example. In that case, she would be just another person trying to get money out of the system. But I honestly don't know or claim to know all the facts to this case. Still a very interesting case for the history books regardless. Especially if we are still talking about it to this day.
 
I didn't know a movie was just released about the case, I'll have to try and check it out, it sounds interesting.

To iwannadie, while there is no law setting the temperature for coffee, what the lawyer tried to do was establish an industry standard for coffee temperatures and argue that the restaurant in question did not follow that standard. In a tort case, industry standards can be a factor a jury considers in establishing liability. I am not sure exactly how the lawyer came up with this standard, but it certainly helped convince the jury.
 
[quote name='iwannadie']Your justification that the coffee was too hot and she deserves money is no difference than my knife being too sharp comparison, I think.[/QUOTE]

Not really.

She was attempting to open the lid to put cream and sugar into her coffee (which is not out of the ordinary) when the cup basically folded, spilling coffee that was served way too hot on to her and caused third degree burns on her genitals/thighs.

Your knife analogy has no legs.

[quote name='caltab']I didn't know a movie was just released about the case, I'll have to try and check it out, it sounds interesting.[/QUOTE]

It's actually more about tort reform but that was a big part of it.

http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/cast/
 
[quote name='kburns10']The research I found showed this particular location had their coffee set at a higher level than corporate sets. But even the lawyer who came to talk to my class said no one could really know all of the facts except the lawyers involved in the case. I agree that if the coffee was not higher than corporate's level, it is no different than your knife example. In that case, she would be just another person trying to get money out of the system. But I honestly don't know or claim to know all the facts to this case. Still a very interesting case for the history books regardless. Especially if we are still talking about it to this day.[/QUOTE]

Yea, I'm just going by what I read here about the temperature of the coffee. Though if it is the woman's daughter making the claim I would think she would know what was said in the court more than anyone who is just guessing.

I think in the mcdonalds cause the mcdonalds lawyers were just to confident and didn't bother to make a case. They thought the jury would just see the woman as money grubbing and throw it out. The severe injuries is what I think won the jury over.

If was on the jury and I herd that she put the coffee between her knees then the cup collapse after she removed the lid, I would see it as her fault. The actual temperature of the coffee would make no difference to me.

From a business standpoint, I can see mcdonalds reason for keeping the coffee temperature higher than normal standards. The higher the temperature the longer they can leave it in the pot before throwing it away and making a new batch. Also, who likes warm coffee? They sell millions to people who like the hot coffee and are happy with it and 700 out of millions get burned, easy failure rate to live with.

Also, now because of that woman being burned the cups have to caution you that the contents may be hot. If that warning was on the cup when the women removed the lid while it was between her knees do you really think that warning would have stopped her?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Not really.

She was attempting to open the lid to put cream and sugar into her coffee (which is not out of the ordinary) when the cup basically folded, spilling coffee that was served way too hot on to her and caused third degree burns on her genitals/thighs.

Your knife analogy has no legs.



It's actually more about tort reform but that was a big part of it.

http://hotcoffeethemovie.com/cast/[/QUOTE]


Mcdonalds gave her a cup with a lid on it, they did not know what she was going to do with it once she took possession. What is "ordinary" is an opinion

I can claim I laid my knife on the counter and went to reach to pick it up and got cut. The blade and handle are both the same stainless steel material. There is no clear indication that one end is the handle and the other end is the blade. I should have a clear warning indicating one end is sharp just as she now has a clear indication the contents may be hot and cautions against removing the lid.

Someone should go to that woman's house then trip and fall and hold her liable for injuries.
 
[quote name='iwannadie']Yea, I'm just going by what I read here about the temperature of the coffee. Though if it is the woman's daughter making the claim I would think she would know what was said in the court more than anyone who is just guessing.

I think in the mcdonalds cause the mcdonalds lawyers were just to confident and didn't bother to make a case. They thought the jury would just see the woman as money grubbing and throw it out. The severe injuries is what I think won the jury over.

If was on the jury and I herd that she put the coffee between her knees then the cup collapse after she removed the lid, I would see it as her fault. The actual temperature of the coffee would make no difference to me.

From a business standpoint, I can see mcdonalds reason for keeping the coffee temperature higher than normal standards. The higher the temperature the longer they can leave it in the pot before throwing it away and making a new batch. Also, who likes warm coffee? They sell millions to people who like the hot coffee and are happy with it and 700 out of millions get burned, easy failure rate to live with.

Also, now because of that woman being burned the cups have to caution you that the contents may be hot. If that warning was on the cup when the women removed the lid while it was between her knees do you really think that warning would have stopped her?[/QUOTE]

No amount of warning labels in this world will prevent stupidity. But I do not agree with keeping the coffee hotter than normal to save it longer. That to me seems like they were too lazy or wanted to cut corners in costs to do that. Yea it might be a waste of coffee to toss it instead of keeping it longer, but McDonalds is not hurting for money nor would changing the coffee a bit more often really affect them much. I'm sure after this case they do now though.
 
[quote name='kburns10']No amount of warning labels in this world will prevent stupidity. But I do not agree with keeping the coffee hotter than normal to save it longer. That to me seems like they were too lazy or wanted to cut corners in costs to do that. Yea it might be a waste of coffee to toss it instead of keeping it longer, but McDonalds is not hurting for money nor would changing the coffee a bit more often really affect them much. I'm sure after this case they do now though.[/QUOTE]

I won't argue it is right to keep the coffee at a high temp to save pennies cause it does suck although I can understand Why they do it. I don't like when the word "normal" is thrown out there though. The coffee is hotter than normal, what is normal? Just because other restaurant keep it at a lower temperature doesn't mean anything. Would you want to be held to the same standards as your neighbors who you have no control over? Mcdonalds could say, a normal person wouldn't put a hot cup of coffee between their knees in a car and then remove the structural lid while squeezing the cup.

Taking it back to the OP, the woman who fell in the fountain can say, texting and walking is normal and that she was doing nothing wrong.
 
[quote name='iwannadie']Mcdonalds could say, a normal person wouldn't put a hot cup of coffee between their knees in a car and then remove the structural lid while squeezing the cup.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree with this. Whether or not McDonald's heated the coffee above the "industry standard" (whatever the hell that means), holding a styrofoam cup between your knees is a HORRIBLE idea. With even a little too much pressure those things will crack right in two. I don't know what the court awarded her above her actual medical costs, but I think there's enough fault for both parties to share. Sure, the coffee may have been "hotter than it needed to be", but her handling of it was pretty reckless as well. I don't care what the temperature is, holding hot liquid in a styrofoam cup between your knees is asking for trouble. I don't know how anyone could find McDonald's completely at fault.

That's almost similar to somebody driving 5 mph over the speed limit (though that actually IS a law...rather than just a generally accepted "standard"), but I walk out in front of their car without looking and get hit. Sure, they shouldn't have been speeding, but who caused the accident? At some point, you have to be responsible for yourself.
 
[quote name='iwannadie']Mcdonalds gave her a cup with a lid on it, they did not know what she was going to do with it once she took possession. What is "ordinary" is an opinion

I can claim I laid my knife on the counter and went to reach to pick it up and got cut. The blade and handle are both the same stainless steel material. There is no clear indication that one end is the handle and the other end is the blade. I should have a clear warning indicating one end is sharp just as she now has a clear indication the contents may be hot and cautions against removing the lid.

Someone should go to that woman's house then trip and fall and hold her liable for injuries.[/QUOTE]

iwannadie, the man of poor analogies

The case had nothing to do with whether the cup had a clear warning on the cup. The coffee was being served at an unsafe temperature, the styrofoam cup they served it in was compromised by the heat and it isn't that crazy to take the lid off of a coffee so you can add cream/sugar (that they provide). It also caused an insane amount of damage (look up what third degree burns are) for spilt coffee.

No, that's not the same as accidentally picking up a knife by the wrong end and suing because the knife was sharp.

She's dead now, I guess you can go fall on her grave and try to sue the graveyard?

- edit 2 [quote name='iwannadie']I don't like when the word "normal" is thrown out there though. The coffee is hotter than normal, what is normal? Just because other restaurant keep it at a lower temperature doesn't mean anything.[/QUOTE]

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain the issue of this coffee? I mean, how hot is coffee supposed to be?

JUDY LIEBECK: Well, a normal home brewer should be between 142 and 162. And of course, when you put it into a ceramic cup, the heat is dissipated. A hundred and eighty-seven degrees, you have two to seven seconds before you have a third-degree burn.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you know it was 187 degrees?

JUDY LIEBECK: That was in McDonald’s manual. Coffee was to be held at all of their facilities at that temperature, worldwide. And the reason for that, we believe, is that the higher the temperature on the coffee, the longer the shelf life of the pot of coffee. So it was a business decision to do that. But it causes irreparable damage. At 142 to 162 degrees, you have 25 seconds to get away from a third-degree burn. It’s not going to happen.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='Sporadic']The coffee was being served at an unsafe temperature, the styrofoam cup they served it in was compromised by the heat and it isn't that crazy to take the lid off of a coffee so you can add cream/sugar (that they provide). It also caused an insane amount of damage (look up what third degree burns are) for spilt coffee.[/QUOTE]

I think that's where the argument lies. What actually caused the cup to "collapse". I'm assuming extensive research was done to prove that styrofoam will not hold up at that temperature, but it's not unreasonable to think that she may have been applying too much pressure with her knees for the cup to withstand. Having said that, if the temperature of the liquid was in fact the true cause of the cup "collapsing", then McDonald's should have turned around and sued the manufacturer of the cup for not putting a warning on it concerning a temperature limit. Why not allow everyone to claim ignorance?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']iwannadie, the man of poor analogies

The case had nothing to do with whether the cup had a clear warning on the cup. The coffee was being served at an unsafe temperature, the styrofoam cup they served it in was compromised by the heat and it isn't that crazy to take the lid off of a coffee so you can add cream/sugar (that they provide). It also caused an insane amount of damage (look up what third degree burns are) for spilt coffee.

No, that's not the same as accidentally picking up a knife by the wrong end and suing because the knife was sharp.

She's dead now, I guess you can go fall on her grave and try to sue the graveyard?

- edit 2[/QUOTE]


Who said the coffee was at an unsafe temperature? It was at a different temperature than other restaurants serve it yes, unsafe by who's standards? Is there an FDA standard that they violated? Who said the cup was compromised by the heat? Take an empty styrofoam cup with and without a lid and squeeze each one, the one with the lid would take more pressure to crush. Just because they provide cream and sugar doesn't mean they intend you to open the lid while the cup is supported between your knees in a car.

The resulting damage being severe doesn't make mcdonalds liable. If the coffee was at your normal temperature and she did the same thing it would still had burned badly. If she ended up with 2nd degree burns would this case had been thrown out? Where is the line drawn in this grey area? If the information in this thread is correct then you have 25 seconds to get away from 3rd degree burn at -normal- coffee temperature. Would she had been able to get away from the liquid that fast? She is in a car, presumably seat belted in and now in a panic covered and sitting in hot liquid. 25 seconds goes by pretty fast when you are in pain and trapped. What if the temperature of the coffee was the same as every other restaurant and she got the same injuries, who's at fault?

I like that you quoted,
JUDY LIEBECK: Well, a normal home brewer should be between 142 and 162. And of course, when you put it into a ceramic cup, the heat is dissipated. A hundred and eighty-seven degrees, you have two to seven seconds before you have a third-degree burn.

A normal person should not do something as irresponsible as putting a known hot cup of coffee between their knees and then open the lid and crush the cup. Also, Who says that a ceramic mug dissipates heat? Ceramic is used as an insulation for a reason, to contain heat. I don't put my coffee in a ceramic mug at home to help cool it down, I do so to help keep it warm while I drink it.

What is normal or should be done are matters of opinions and in this case can go both ways. You can't hold mcdonalds liable for what you feel is normal or what you feel should be done. Then, not hold the woman to the same standards of being normal or doing what she should do.
 
[quote name='iwannadie']Who said the coffee was at an unsafe temperature?[/QUOTE]

It was undrinkable at the temperature it was served at (if you attempted to drink it, it would burn your mouth and throat). That is pretty much an unsafe temperature.

[quote name='iwannadie']A normal person should not do something as irresponsible as putting a known hot cup of coffee between their knees and then open the lid and crush the cup. [/QUOTE]

You keep wanting to pass the blame off onto her by continually posting that she crushed the cup with her knees. That she would have been injured irregardless...but again that isn't the point. She was seriously injured (third degree burns which required skin grafts, seriously think about that) because they served it at a reckless temperature. It happened 700 times before her over a ten year period. They knew it could happen and didn't care.

Also, what do you expect a person to do when they are in a car with no cup holders? You never set a drink between your legs to hold onto to it? Did you expect her to get out of the car and take the lid off of the coffee she got through the drive thru?

[quote name='iwannadie']What is normal or should be done are matters of opinions and in this case can go both ways. You can't hold mcdonalds liable for what you feel is normal or what you feel should be done. Then, not hold the woman to the same standards of being normal or doing what she should do.[/QUOTE]

Ok, this is a matter of opinions. A jury (of normal people)and judge concluded that it was 80% Mcdonalds fault and 20% her fault.

Why are you arguing against it (with very poor analogies)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='iwannadie']Who said the coffee was at an unsafe temperature?[/QUOTE]If unsafe isn't 3rd degree burns in 2-5 seconds, I really don't know what the fuck is.

The knife analogy is awful. Nobody would sue for having a sharper knife, the sharper the knife the better. If she was suing because the coffee tasted too good, then you'd have a point.

If the coffee was at an acceptable temperature, she would've got her pants wet and it would've cooled down before wrecking her shit up. Then she would've went home and watching Guiding Light, forgetting it even happened.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Nor would anything change your mind. Or anyone else in the vs. forum. I sometimes forget things like this and post here. I'm sure we both have better things to do with our time. If it makes you feel better: you win.[/QUOTE]

I have no interest in "winning," its the internet. There's no need to change my mind because I'm not taking a hardline stance she was or was not guilty. I'm advocating her case in this situation because it is highly misinterpreted and is used as a reason to villify the courts system of this country. My only stance is that people shouldn't take such a narrow view of things and disregard information contrary to their opinion. Its not just a "vs. forum" thing, its American politics in general. Its seen as a defeat or victory these days just for someone to say something like "you may be right." I'm not saying I'm right about whether this woman deserved the settlement or not; what I am saying is that everyone should at least have all the facts before judging her and the civil justice system as a whole.

[quote name='n8rockerasu']I have to agree with this. Whether or not McDonald's heated the coffee above the "industry standard" (whatever the hell that means), holding a styrofoam cup between your knees is a HORRIBLE idea. With even a little too much pressure those things will crack right in two. I don't know what the court awarded her above her actual medical costs, but I think there's enough fault for both parties to share. Sure, the coffee may have been "hotter than it needed to be", but her handling of it was pretty reckless as well. I don't care what the temperature is, holding hot liquid in a styrofoam cup between your knees is asking for trouble. I don't know how anyone could find McDonald's completely at fault.

That's almost similar to somebody driving 5 mph over the speed limit (though that actually IS a law...rather than just a generally accepted "standard"), but I walk out in front of their car without looking and get hit. Sure, they shouldn't have been speeding, but who caused the accident? At some point, you have to be responsible for yourself.[/QUOTE]

Which is why most states have what is called comparative fault because sometimes when you hurt yourself its only a percentage of your fault. Hence the reason in the post regarding her judgment it said that she was found to be 20% at fault and McDonalds is 80% at fault.

You can really look at it either way. If McDonalds hadn't set the coffee temperature too high then spilling it on her legs wouldn't be that big of a deal. If she had extensive burns to her throat and mouth though then McDonalds would have been completely at fault.

Regarding the speeding analogy you made. There are cases like that in court all the time. See, going over the speed limit by 5 mph will reduce the reaction time of the driver though and even if you aren't paying attention he should have been paying attention and following the traffic laws.
 
Lest we forget the 67 million dollar pants lawsuit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung

In fairness, at the end he was only asking for $2 million for "discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress". For a lost pair of pants. If that isn't reasonable, I don't know what is!

Oh yeah, we don't need tort reform, vindictive lawyers putting bluecollar folks out of business over a lost pair of pants is just the American way.
 
[quote name='camoor']Lest we forget the 67 million dollar pants lawsuit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung

In fairness, at the end he was only asking for $2 million for "discomfort, inconvenience, and mental distress". For a lost pair of pants. If that isn't reasonable, I don't know what is!

Oh yeah, we don't need tort reform, vindictive lawyers putting bluecollar folks out of business over a lost pair of pants is just the American way.[/QUOTE]

The plaintiff lost the lawsuit and would likely have been forced to pay the defendant's attorneys fees if not for their fundraising. How is that an example of a need for tort reform? I'd say that's actually a reason to say we don't need tort reform, because the system worked to prevent a frivolous lawsuit from succeeding.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The plaintiff lost the lawsuit and would likely have been forced to pay the defendant's attorneys fees if not for their fundraising. How is that an example of a need for tort reform? I'd say that's actually a reason to say we don't need tort reform, because the system worked to prevent a frivolous lawsuit from succeeding.[/QUOTE]

The fact that you can not comprehend that it's a problem when someone can get sued for 67 million dollars over a lost pair of pants, have to go through endless years of litigation, appeals, etc speaks volumes.

Capital that gets tied up in litigation is capital that cannot be spent on business expenses. Operations like a small chain of cleaners typically do not leave a wide enough margin to handle multi-million dollar lawsuits.
 
[quote name='camoor']The fact that you can not comprehend that it's a problem when someone can get sued for 67 million dollars over a lost pair of pants, have to go through endless years of litigation, appeals, etc speaks volumes.

Capital that gets tied up in litigation is capital that cannot be spent on business expenses. Operations like a small chain of cleaners typically do not leave a wide enough margin to handle multi-million dollar lawsuits.[/QUOTE]

The trial itself lasted 13 days. Discovery, appeals, etc. don't require the presence of the defendant, that's what their attorney is there for.

The damages asked for were no doubt excessive but the cause of action itself was valid. They lost his pants. Is it normally worth suing someone for that? Nope. Should it be possible to sue someone you've paid for a service for losing your property? Absolutely.

You can't say that just because the plaintiff's requested damages were excessively high (which they were) that they shouldn't be able to bring suit at all. What if the suit was a $5,000 suit (not that much a stretch considering it's DC) and the cleaner refused to reimburse for it being lost? Is the owner supposed to just say "oh well, guess I can't sue because it would be frivolous, the price doesn't matter, its only clothes"?

As far as capital being tied up in legal expenses, why didn't they have insurance?
 
I think the whole defense in that woman's case was that even if she had acted responsibly, she still would have been seriously burned. That even if she ordered it inside the restaurant, sat down at a table, and was extra cautious, it still would have seriously burned her throat/mouth.

Someone could probably sue applying the same line of thinking to a knife though. Say that you're given a kitchen knife that is sharper than the industry standard and you're not informed. Same story with different details.

Still, I'm glad that they said that it was atleast 20% her fault (even if I think that somewhat arbitrary number is rather low). The warning label is more of an appeasement than anything. They couldn't possibly put "Caution. This coffee may be at an unsafe temperature."
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The trial itself lasted 13 days. Discovery, appeals, etc. don't require the presence of the defendant, that's what their attorney is there for.

The damages asked for were no doubt excessive but the cause of action itself was valid. They lost his pants. Is it normally worth suing someone for that? Nope. Should it be possible to sue someone you've paid for a service for losing your property? Absolutely.

You can't say that just because the plaintiff's requested damages were excessively high (which they were) that they shouldn't be able to bring suit at all. What if the suit was a $5,000 suit (not that much a stretch considering it's DC) and the cleaner refused to reimburse for it being lost? Is the owner supposed to just say "oh well, guess I can't sue because it would be frivolous, the price doesn't matter, its only clothes"?

As far as capital being tied up in legal expenses, why didn't they have insurance?[/QUOTE]

Why don't you actually read what happened instead of trying to color it to suit your own preconceived notions

So ironic that you chastise others over the hot coffee incident, yet don't have a fucking clue how this affected the lives of the poor immigrants who came here seeking the American dream.

"The whole city is aware of this lawsuit," said Bob King, who represents Fort Lincoln on the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. "Everybody's laughing about it."
Everybody except the Chungs, who have spent thousands of dollars defending themselves against Pearson's lawsuit.
"It's not humorous, not funny and nobody would have thought that something like this would have happened," Soo Chung told ABC News through an interpreter.
Her husband agreed.
"It's affecting us first of all financially, because of all the lawyers' fees," Jin Chung said. "For two years, we've been paying lawyer fees. … We've gotten bad credit as well, and secondly, it's been difficult mentally and physically because of the level of stress."
Later, Soo Chung broke down in tears.
"I would have never thought it would have dragged on this long," she told ABC News. "I don't want to live here anymore. It's been so difficult. I just want to go home, go back to Korea."
"I've been in the dry cleaning business for 14 years, but this has never ever happened before. If anything happened to our customers' clothing, we would always compensate them accordingly and fairly," Jin Chung said through a translator.
Click to expand...

First, Pearson demanded $1,150 for a new suit. Lawyers were hired, legal wrangling ensued and eventually the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000 in compensation.
No dice.
Then they offered him $4,600.
No dice.
Finally, they offered $12,000 for the missing gray trousers with the red and blue stripes.
Pearson said no.
With neither satisfaction nor his prized gray pants, Pearson upped the ante considerably.
The judge went to the lawbooks. Citing the District of Columbia's consumer protection laws, he claims he is entitled to $1,500 per violation.
Per day.
What follows is the beginning of thousands of pages of legal documents and correspondence that, two years later, have led to a massive civil lawsuit in the amount of $67 million.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/story?id=3119381&page=2

PS - Insurance for missing clothes? It's not mom-n-pop brain surgery - it's freaking laundry
 
[quote name='camoor']Why don't you actually read what happened instead of trying to color it to suit your own preconceived notions

So ironic that you chastise others over the hot coffee incident, yet don't have a fucking clue how this affected the lives of the poor immigrants who came here seeking the American dream.





http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/story?id=3119381&page=2

PS - Insurance for missing clothes? It's not mom-n-pop brain surgery - it's freaking laundry[/QUOTE]

You don't insure the clothes, you insure the business.

I'm not sure what else you would have me read into the story? They were sued, it was ridiculous demand for damages by any stretch of the imagination. The cause of action was entirely valid though; they lost his suit. Are you saying that because they're immigrants they should be immune to being sued?

By the way before you start decrying how they lost their American dream. What about their other dry cleaning shop?

Citing a loss of revenue and emotional strain from the lawsuit, the Chungs announced, on September 19, 2007, that they have closed and sold the dry cleaning shop involved in the dispute. The Chungs still own one additional dry cleaning shop and have stated they will be focusing their attention and resources on their remaining shop.[40]
Click to expand...

So they closed one location citing the lawsuit but apparently could keep the other location in business? How do we know for sure that was the only reason their business failed? Business fail every day for a variety of reasons, sometimes it's because of lawsuits, sometimes it's for other reasons. They may have lost one of their businesses but they won the lawsuit, what other way should this have been handled? Their legal expenses were covered because of a fundraiser, so they couldn't get fees from the plaintiff. As for the costs of the appeal...
Manning is representing the Chungs on the appeal pro bono.
Click to expand...

What kind of tort reform would you propose to prevent this from happening in the future? I can't think of anything. Limit the amount of damages he could ask for? You could do that but how would you decide what's fair amount of damages to ask for? In this case millions of dollars is obviously too much but where do you make the distinction except actually running the trial and having the jury decide?

You're attacking me for what? Defending that the man had the right to sue? Everyone should have the right to sue. Asking for too much damages? How do you determine what's too much to ask for?

As I see it, the only problem in this case was he asked for too much damages which were never even considered. Does asking for too much damages automatically invalidate your claims?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']See, going over the speed limit by 5 mph will reduce the reaction time of the driver though and even if you aren't paying attention he should have been paying attention and following the traffic laws.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if this was an attempt at condescension, but whatever. No kidding going over the speed limit will reduce reaction time. But if I literally step off the sidewalk into your car, your reaction time doesn't much matter now does it? Obviously, in that kind of case, you'd have the length of the skid marks analyzed and all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, it would be the idiot who walked into traffic without looking who CAUSED the accident...not the 5 mph over. Both are in the wrong, but only one is the cause of the accident. That was the point...and the comparison.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']I don't know if this was an attempt at condescension, but whatever. No kidding going over the speed limit will reduce reaction time. But if I literally step off the sidewalk into your car, your reaction time doesn't much matter now does it? Obviously, in that kind of case, you'd have the length of the skid marks analyzed and all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, it would be the idiot who walked into traffic without looking who CAUSED the accident...not the 5 mph over. Both are in the wrong, but only one is the cause of the accident. That was the point...and the comparison.[/QUOTE]

No, I wasn't being condescending. I was explaining it from the standpoint of the law and comparative fault (or comparative negligence). The trial for a situation like this would depend on exactly what you mentioned evidence of the skid marks, reaction times, etc. From the standpoint of the law both people are at fault: but for the pedestrian not paying attention the accident wouldn't have happened AND but for the driver hitting him with his car he wouldn't have been injured.

The law doesn't recognize who is "wrong" in a situation, only the causes. You may very will be right in your hypothetical that the pedestrian was the only cause of the incident. In fact, there's been cases that have gone both ways on this type of situation. Sometimes the pedestrian is at fault regardless of whether the driver was over the limit. Sometimes the driver is still apportioned a percentage of the fault, sometimes none. All those questions are things to be answered by the fact-finder in a case, either the judge or jury.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']What kind of tort reform would you propose to prevent this from happening in the future? I can't think of anything. Limit the amount of damages he could ask for? You could do that but how would you decide what's fair amount of damages to ask for?[/QUOTE]

Here's an idea - maybe limit it to a multiple of the value of the original item. You know - a common sense rough guide. That way when someone walks in asking for 54 mil for a pair of pants, the judge can tell the guy to go get his head examined.

This isn't brain surgery.
 
[quote name='camoor']Here's an idea - maybe limit it to a multiple of the value of the original item. You know - a common sense rough guide. That way when someone walks in asking for 54 mil for a pair of pants, the judge can tell the guy to go get his head examined.

This isn't brain surgery.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying to limit the punitive or compensatory damages then? How do you determine the value of the item if it doesn't have a retail value? What if the value of the lost item has a significant sentimental value attached to it?

What I'm saying is, there's just too many question marks with damages to limit what you can plead them on, hence the need for an entire trial to determine their basis. Additionally, limiting the amount of requested damages doesn't change the fact that he still had a valid cause of action and was therefore entitled to sue. They still would have had to pay for a lawyer and defend themselves against the lawsuit.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']But at the end of the day, it would be the idiot who walked into traffic without looking who CAUSED the accident...not the 5 mph over. Both are in the wrong, but only one is the cause of the accident. That was the point...and the comparison.[/QUOTE]

Violating a criminal statute is called "negligence per se." In the majority of jurisdiction it automatically establishes that you breached your duty of care and were negligent as a matter of law. You still need to show causation and damages though. A comparative fault jurisdiction would reduce damages based on the walkers own negligence. The entire point of a speed limit is to protect human life and prevent accidents. If you are speeding and hit someone you deserve to be punished in my opinion. I know its harsh, but you have to draw the line somewhere to protect human life. Your illustration can actually have far greater ramifications than just civil litigation though, in some jurisdiction you can actually be convicted of vehecular homicide. Usually, you'd have to be found to be acting "reckless", but I seem to remember that some courts have actually found 5 miles per hour over the speed limit to be reckless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top