Re: Lawsuit out West

"law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Drew Nicholson wrote:
>
> >
> > The funny thing is, the McDonald's coffee case is usually complely
> > misrepresented, and was a very legit case.
> >
>
> Now, whether or not this was a "very legit case" is a matter of opinion.
>   Althought the jury awarded a multimillion amount of money, a judge
> later reduced that to a more legitimate figure.  (Actual figures: $200k
> in compensatory damages reduced to $160k because she was found to be 20%
> liable; $2.7M in punitive damages ... reduced to $480k by the judge.)


As you point out later, 2.7 mill isn't really all that horrible a judgement
against a company who makes that in only 2days of coffee sales.


>
> But, being a strong one for advocating responsibility for one's own
> actions, I find the concept that somebody was stupid enough to put a
> styrofoam cup full of hot coffee between their knees while driving in a
> moving car NOT indicative of a "very legit case" holding McDonald's
> completely responsible.  A case was made because McDonald's coffee was
> overheated (made the coffee smell good to the buying public, but made
> the taste not as good) and they had been warned by a governing body
> (OSHA or the local equivalent maybe?) and there had been previously
> burned people (between 1982 and 1992 700 people -- hmmm, since
> McDonald's *daily* revenue from coffee is $1.3M PER DAY, an awful lot of
> people didn't get burned).
>
> Now, this can legitmately be called a judgement against McDonalds for
> "Stupidity."  Not only did they routinely serve the coffee at a
> temperature that could cause third degree burns, the woman in the case
> offered to settle for $20,000 and McDonald's refused.  IMO, the full $3M
> should have stood just because stupidity should be expensive.
>
>
> Lia
>


I agree here. The 3M should have stood because of what they did to this
woman's rep in the name of intimidation.