![]() After filing her suit, a court ordered mediator recommended that McDonald’s pay her $225,000 to settle the claim. She originally had no thought of suing McDonald’s, but they insulted her. McDonald’s refused and then offered her $800 for her claim. What the Plaintiff did before her trial: After her operations, Stella asked McDonald’s to pay her medical expenses of approximately $20,000. McDonald’s simply calculated the cost of paying claims and worker’s compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee and compared that with the enormous profit to be made from coffee. McDonald’s safety engineers testified at trial that McDonald’s considered these other injuries, some of which were second and third degree burns, trivial. In the ten years preceding the injury to the plaintiff, McDonald’s knew that over 700 people, mostly children and their own employees, had been injured by coffee and hot chocolate that was too hot. They bragged about the excellent insulating qualities of the coffee cups. The evidence at trial was that McDonald’s served their coffee at that temperature to save money because (1) they could use a cheaper grade of coffee and (2) it cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonald’s executives testified at trial that they knew that the coffee could not be consumed at its serving temperature because it would injure the mouth and throat. She went through several skin grafting operations. Ten percent of her body was permanently scarred. Stella suffered third degree burns to her thigh and buttocks. At that temperature a liquid will cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds. You could not drink it right after it was served. No one else served coffee that hot! If you are a coffee drinker, think back to the McDonald’s coffee of several years ago. What she did not know was that her McDonald’s coffee was served at a temperature that was 45-50 degrees hotter than the industry standard. She was doing what most of us commonly do after buying coffee at the drive-up window, she was adding cream and sugar to it. What The Jury Heard: The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, was not driving. It was not until McDonald’s executives testified that the jury got angry with the indifferent attitude of this huge corporation. When the McDonald’s jury first heard what the case was about, they thought it was silly. The case never would have gotten so far had McDonald’s accepted responsibility for its decision to put profits in front of safety. ![]() The reason for the failure to accurately report the case is undoubtedly because McDonald’s is such a heavy hitter, advertising-wise. The truth about this case is rarely told and certainly has not been reported in the media. Jurors come into court today not wanting to be "fooled" like that jury in the McDonald’s case. It is cited as an example of someone else ripping off the system and of someone not accepting personal responsibility for their actions. ![]() Of all of the "infamous" cases of the jury system gone crazy, the McDonald’s "hot coffee" case must rank number one.Įvery time I hear the topic brought up, those discussing it talk about the "millions" some lady got because she spilled coffee on herself while driving her car.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |